USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[piste off]

What happens of the system runs out of rooms? Can you just not compete?

I know lots of people that as soon as the event is anounced book many, many more rooms than they need to ensure their peeps have a place if they want it. Then they cancel as the event approaches as needed, freeing up inventory (this is how I got in at the Gaylord).

I'm sure we can extend that logic to take all availabe rooms. The waiver should be available for cases where the system runs out of rooms, allowing you to book elsewhere. Do that, then cancel the block in time so there is no cost.

Viola, you beat the system.

R-

[occasionalfencer]

I know lots of people that as soon as the event is anounced book many, many more rooms than they need to ensure their peeps have a place if they want it. Then they cancel as the event approaches as needed, freeing up inventory (this is how I got in at the Gaylord).

I'm sure we can extend that logic to take all availabe rooms. The waiver should be available for cases where the system runs out of rooms, allowing you to book elsewhere. Do that, then cancel the block in time so there is no cost.

Viola, you beat the system.

R-

Among the interesting pieces of information being withheld by the USFA is exactly how the waiver system will work. Who decides what is waiver-able, and what isn't? When do they decide? What if you apply for a waiver and don't get it? What if you do get it, but THS messes it up, and cancels your registration for your event?

I use the phrase "being withheld" since there is still no official information available. I have emailed and called several people and gotten no information other than it is a plan which will allow fencers to book hotel rooms at a lower rate.

You can't beat the system if it beats you back.

[fencer92]

We never stay at the venue hotel. I don't want to be stuck in a Double Room with my 17 year old. Not that he isn't great company. We always use Marriott points and often are able to use them for our Coach thus able to reduce cost for our club members. Most of the time the hotel has a shuttle to the venue. In Texas we stayed in a 2 bedroom suite with all of the comforts of home for 70.00 a night. More than paid for our rental car. If this program is enacted we would certainly have to rethink our participation as a family in National events. More than likely we would send our son with his coach. While I know this practice is common, it does not make it necessarily desirable.

[nahouw]

What happens of the system runs out of rooms? Can you just not compete?

I don't think that that is what will happen with this system. You have to go back to the root of the problem to understand why we have arrived here.

Several years ago, before THS, at the NAC in Palm Springs, I was unable to get into the host hotel, and was only able to get reservations in one hotel for the first and third night, and a second hotel for the second night. When I saw Mike Massik and explained my situation, he said that there were plenty of rooms at the host hotel, and I should move into there to help offset the amount of penalties that the hotel will charge due to not meeting the requirement. I said that I couldn't do that, because then I would face a penalty of cancelling less than 24 hours. What apparently happened, is that many clubs booked rooms early and then cancelled when their fencers didn't come. I knew of 1 club who booked 5 rooms, and only used 1. I think I recall that MM said that the penalty was 100,000. The move years ago to have THS handle the rooms I am sure was to decrease the amount of penalties incurred. However, the root of the problem is the lack of the USFA posting a schedule early enough, so that is why people book for the entire time and then cancel rooms once the schedule is out, unfortunately, after that time frame is when the hotel calculates the time range for holding rooms. By having THS now use this "Stay and Play" system, I would think that THS will only book people that actually have a registration filed with the USFA -- this will totally eliminate those clubs who book lots of rooms and then cancel them. The hotels will allocate a block of rooms based on who they expect to book; apparently, they have been burned before, and the USFA has to pick up the penalty costs. As a hotel, if I am guaranteed that any reservation booked is backed by an actual event registration, I would be more inclined to allow a larger block of rooms -- a bird in the hand is worth more than in the bush that will cancel. This protects the USFA from penalties, and the hotel from losses of income. But it is all related back to the root of publishing a schedule so that fencers can accurately book their hotel.

[oiuyt]

Among the interesting pieces of information being withheld by the USFA is exactly how the waiver system will work. Who decides what is waiver-able, and what isn't? When do they decide? What if you apply for a waiver and don't get it? What if you do get it, but THS messes it up, and cancels your registration for your event?

I use the phrase "being withheld" since there is still no official information available.

Being withheld and not yet available are VERY different things.

The price of Google's stock in one month is being withheld. I've left messages for twelve different stock brokers and not one of them has returned my call to tell me this very important information. If they'd only tell me I could invest now and guarantee a nice profit, but they're insisting on withholding it instead, greedy pigs.

The waiver system is still being determined. What qualifies, and what the process is to obtain one. I've posted a number of items that have been on the preliminary lists that I've seen. There IS no additional information that is being withheld.

We always use Marriott points and often are able to use them for our Coach thus able to reduce cost for our club members.

Points for a room was on the preliminary lists that I saw as a waiverable reason.

What apparently happened, is that many clubs booked rooms early and then cancelled when their fencers didn't come. I knew of 1 club who booked 5 rooms, and only used 1.

<SNIP>

However, the root of the problem is the lack of the USFA posting a schedule early enough, so that is why people book for the entire time and then cancel rooms once the schedule is out

I think you've cited a valid problem, but not the right reason.

I know lots of people that as soon as the event is anounced book many, many more rooms than they need to ensure their peeps have a place if they want it. Then they cancel as the event approaches as needed

Frequently it has nothing to do with the schedule.

Sometimes, of course, it does. Individuals will block out the entire event and then drop to just their nights. Clubs block out not only the entire event, but also a large number of rooms. They drop not only to the nights needed, but also dropping to the number of rooms needed. And frequently hold them well after their entire membership is sorted, in case they can help out someone else or some other club. They know eventually they'll end up with a member who's inadvertantly left out and having friendly clubs who've held 3 extra rooms will take care of them. Or, as piste off puts it, "ensure their peeps have a place if they want it."

Having the schedule out earlier will not help with this.

-B

[dekko]

B,

The whole idea in preventing price fixing is to allow for free competition of products and services to a buyer, allowing for reasonable circumstances. Example: I buy 100 widgets a month and you buy 2, I will, likely, receive a lower price for my widgets than you will pay, this is not illegal even though it may seem on the surface. One phrase constantly used by attorneys is "Slippery Slope". If only certain hotels work with THS and we as fencers have to stay at one of those or we are not allowed to compete, while following all current standards for competing, this could be seen as fixing/collusion/rigging/etc. IE, if we don't stay at one of them we can't compete, when all restrictions and expectations otherwise followed. We as competitors in NAC X are being given no other opportunity for our personal best option or we as consumers feel we wish to persue, we are atrifically having our options limited. The question is, are our options being limited illegally.

I was hoping for an attorney's opinion and will get one eventually but this is very shakey as presented, thus far with waiver allowances to come, and could be seen as a problem by some in the legal world. Atrticially limiting options and preventing competition for goods and services is a problem unless they fall under certain criteria, anti-trust/national security/etc.

Also, these laws can vary from state to state and while this idea, for instance, may be legal in Iowa it will not be legal in Texas(pure conjecture based on two states hosting NACs this year don't get excited). Did any attorney associated with US Fencing give this the once over for legal issues or did Kurt just speak up one day and say "Hey, I've got a good idea...."

[flechewounds]

Brad, et al:

For a load of reasons, some mentioned here, others not, compelling use of THS is about the worst idea I've ever seen. Furthermore, this whole concept appears to be a half-baked concept provided by a vendor trying to pad their bottom line by offering a bit of benefit to their client's bottom line...

"If you fire your other vendors and use us exclusively, you'll save an additional $10." They forget, however, to mention that they'll make an additional $100,000 on the process. Enlightened self interest? I think not.

At the end of the day, this smells like an inappropriate grab into the wallets of each and every fencing family. Instead of relying on kickbacks, which if not illegal, are certainly immoral, the USFA should rely upon simply making the use of THS the first choice - on a price and service basis - for its community. In that event, the market will decide. Until it does that, the program is, for lack of a better way of putting it, b*lls*it.

Is the USFA going to do the same thing with United? Fly United or don't fence? What about equipment? Are we going to require that all fencers competing in a National event use Leon Paul equipment (because the USFA gets a kickback?). Again, this is a real problem.

While I'm still Pacific Section chair (for two weeks), I intend to notify the members of my section of this practice - and ask them to write to Kurt and Kallie with outrage. This is ridiculous.

Gary Zeiss
Pacific Section Chair

[oiuyt]

The whole idea in preventing price fixing is to allow for free competition of products and services to a buyer, allowing for reasonable circumstances. Example: I buy 100 widgets a month and you buy 2, I will, likely, receive a lower price for my widgets than you will pay, this is not illegal even though it may seem on the surface. One phrase constantly used by attorneys is "Slippery Slope". If only certain hotels work with THS and we as fencers have to stay at one of those or we are not allowed to compete, while following all current standards for competing, this could be seen as fixing/collusion/rigging/etc. IE, if we don't stay at one of them we can't compete, when all restrictions and expectations otherwise followed. We as competitors in NAC X are being given no other opportunity for our personal best option or we as consumers feel we wish to persue, we are atrifically having our options limited. The question is, are our options being limited illegally.

You seem to be conflating at least two completely separate issues.

And it's not clear you understand either monopolies OR price rigging. It's also unclear which parties you seem to think are colluding (or could potentially collude).

Pretend I don't understand what you mean at all and spell it out in bite-sized chunks. Bullet points, if you will.

-B

[oiuyt]

"If you fire your other vendors and use us exclusively, you'll save an additional $10." They forget, however, to mention that they'll make an additional $100,000 on the process. Enlightened self interest? I think not.

Is there a point at which it becomes a good program?

If THS makes $10 more and US Fencing makes $1,000,000 more, is that something we should do? Even if THS suggests it?

What if THS makes $50,000 and US Fencing makes $200,000? With the $250,000 coming out of the share currently made by Hilton, Sheraton, et al., but not directly from the membership?

What if it's $50,000 to THS, $100,000 to US Fencing, and $50,000 to the membership, $50,000 to hotel chains that participate in the program, and -$250,000 to the chains which don't (and therefore lose the business)?

Where's the line, and who draws it?

-B

[dekko]

You seem to be conflating at least two completely separate issues.

And it's not clear you understand either monopolies OR price rigging. It's also unclear which parties you seem to think are colluding (or could potentially collude).

Pretend I don't understand what you mean at all and spell it out in bite-sized chunks. Bullet points, if you will.

-B

Well, you said it to me so I will return the favor, this has been answered, more than once.

I may be mixing seperate issues, hence the reason I wanted an attorney to respond to this not a non-attorney, and I never used the word monopoly, you did and yes I know it appears in the link I provided, but if this goes through this could cause huge problems. US Fencing and THS have the same customer, these two entites are entering into an agreement to prevent their collective customer base from exercising reasonable competitive options, due to severe penalty. IF the least expensive room THS offers is $110 a night but I want to stay at Super 8 for $35 a night and will be unreasonably penaltized from doing so, registratation cancelled and not allowed to compete. Yes, I know the waiver system has yet to be fully parsed AND exercised but B, seriously, this is very thin ice that US Fencing is standing on with this 'program'. Did any US Fencing attorney review this before you folks decided to make it go for this coming season? Also, there is no such thing as a soft roll out with this, it's all or nothing. Fencer's registrations will either be cancelled or not, there is no in between.

Please, rethink this. When Kurt bothers to return you folks seriously need to review this before allowing it to happen.

[Morale Officer]

Where's the line, and who draws it?

-B

I can ask that same question about the waivers. What if I can't afford to stay at a hotel that THS offers? What if I can only afford to split a $40 a night hotel room with 2 or 3 other people that THS doesn't offer? Are they going to tell myself and the others I am rooming with that we can't fence because we didn't go through THS because we're too poor to afford both the entry fees and the THS hotel? That would turn fencing back into an elitist sport and detract more people from even trying the sport. I understand that the economy sucks for everyone and that the USFA needs to generate more revenue somehow, but to use your question, Where is the line and who draws it? Would I have to provide financial statements? Prove how much I make and what I pay in bills? Where's the line and who draws it?

[flechewounds]

Is there a point at which it becomes a good program?

If THS makes $10 more and US Fencing makes $1,000,000 more, is that something we should do? Even if THS suggests it?

What if THS makes $50,000 and US Fencing makes $200,000? With the $250,000 coming out of the share currently made by Hilton, Sheraton, et al., but not directly from the membership?

What if it's $50,000 to THS, $100,000 to US Fencing, and $50,000 to the membership, $50,000 to hotel chains that participate in the program, and -$250,000 to the chains which don't (and therefore lose the business)?

Where's the line, and who draws it?

-B

Brad -

There is no point at which forcing people into this choice of accommodation becomes a good program. The only thing that makes sense is offering better service at a competitive price - and letting members make their choice. If it is easier, competitive and offers a higher level of service, people will simply choose it. Historically, it has not been any of these.

Not easier - because, frankly, their website stinks and I don't know what I'm getting when I register. On priceline/hotwire, I may not know what I'm getting - but at least I know the price. Here I don't. Their web site does not pass the muster - and until they invest in their customer-facing technology, they shouldn't be taken seriously as a vendor.

Not competitive - frankly, I the venue hotel at Louisville PLUS a car last year for $50/less a night than THS's rate (hotwire, and I knew the name of the hotel before I booked). That has happened on several occasions to me, personally, and anecdotally it has happened to many. Furthermore, if I choose to stay in an extended stay facility (the kitchen is useful - I'm a vegetarian - and few big hotel restaurants offer vegetarian protein of any kind), my savings (with the car) usually run to 66-75% of the venue hotel (including parking charges).

Level of service - on several occasions, I have had the "no room" or the "king only" problem - when traveling as a referee with my family (I usually get a single because I'm with them). The usual answer "oops, but there's nothing we can do." I've taken to calling the hotel to make sure that the reservation is right before I leave - something that I've never had to do when I take care of my own arrangements.

Echoing many of the other comments, adding another "gang who can't shoot straight" to an organization that frankly has had problems "shooting straight" in recent past isn't a recipe for success - or for building trust. Providing a better product (which, for the most part, the NAC's and Nationals have been, but THS (or the newer shirt vendor, for that matter) haven't been) is the way to do that.

If the THS deal is underperforming, the real place to look is at THS and the promotion of that deal. Let them improve their product choice and promote to the membership directly via email, on fencing.net and on the web site the great deals they have (after all, they are kind of invisible) - let them earn the membership's trust and respect. If they put a better product out there people will use it.

For example, they could offer a "close-of-registration special" - x% off your room if booked on or before close of registration with a one-night non-refundable deposit (this could be a better deal than hotwire, where I have to pay for the entire stay in advance - even if my plans change). This would guarantee revenue, provide better occupancy knowledge and improve deal performance - and would look like we're getting the opportunity to get a good deal rather than getting systematically hosed. There are ways to use the market to improve the situation.

But for god's sake, don't just say "well we've done so-so (or worse) in the past, so the answer is to force you to use us." That has never been the way to improve either public perception or deal performance. It simply doesn't work.

Gary

[chris437]

The forced THS idea sounds like a hassle to any fencers who happen to live in the city hosting the tournament.

[teacup]

By forcing people to use THS, is the goal of the USFA to make more money or DECREASE the size of US events, since doing so may make fencers decide not to go at all. In fact why not just go to Europe? European entry fees are usually 10 Euros, most hotel rates are quite reasonable and almost always include breakfast. Even airfares drop in winter.

Most coaches don't compete so withholding the right to fence isn't going to encourage them to use THS. Or is the USFA going to ask them for waivers too? Or perhaps everyone should just ask for waivers then decide where they want to stay. That would be a paperwork nightmare for the office staff.

As I posted previously, getting more revenue from fencers using THS is great!! If THS is the best option then fencers will choose to use it. Especially if they are encouraged to do so and are made aware of the financial benefits that the USFA receives from using them.

Otherwise this concept is just too complicated for an already complicated sport. Plus will the word really get out to everyone? If the stipulation to use THS is buried somewhere in the Athletes' Handbook, there definitely will be some people who miss this requirement, show up, are denied entry and become very upset.

Is this the best way to promote the sport of fencing?

[oiuyt]

There is no point at which forcing people into this choice of accommodation becomes a good program.

Really?

What if Hilton declared that they wanted to be the sole "Super-Duper Platinum-level Official Sponsor and Patron" of US Fencing? The deal they offer is that they will fund all travel for all athletes involved in any fencing in the country (or abroad, when representing the US). Additionally they will provide US Fencing with one billion dollars. Annually.

In exchange they insist on a requirement that all of that travel include stays at a Hilton family property (lodging costs comped by Hilton).

That wouldn't be worth accepting?

Okay, obviously that's not going to happen. But saying that there is NO point at which a line is crossed where the deal becomes worth doing is overly-simplistic.

If you accept that the above deal is worth taking then we're back to the question of where is the line and who gets to draw it. If you maintain the position that individual free choice is so valuable that the above deal is not sufficient (nor is one with more zeroes added, no matter how large "more" becomes) then I would have to agree that there's an impasse and unlikely to be a solution.

Whether or not the Stay & Play program, as currently constituted (or as constituted once the various variables are settled) is a good choice for US Fencing is something which can be reasonably debated. And a decision that needs to be made by some person or group of people (in this case Kurt and/or the rest of the staff). It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to say that there can be no such program that could ever be accepted.

edit: It's also not reasonable, in my opinion, to say that it's impossible for the same goals can't be accomplished through some other mechanism. Or that it's impossible for some such mechanism to be preferable to Stay & Play (no matter how constituted). Presumably feedback on Stay & Play will be taken into consideration. As would suggestions of other revenue generating/saving programs.

-B

[teacup]

The forced THS idea sounds like a hassle to any fencers who happen to live in the city hosting the tournament.

Excellent point!

The Broadmoor Hotel booked through THS had a two night minimum. Would the USFA make people stay two nights or would that be a waiver?

[occasionalfencer]

Being withheld and not yet available are VERY different things.

The price of Google's stock in one month is being withheld. I've left messages for twelve different stock brokers and not one of them has returned my call to tell me this very important information. If they'd only tell me I could invest now and guarantee a nice profit, but they're insisting on withholding it instead, greedy pigs.

The waiver system is still being determined. What qualifies, and what the process is to obtain one. I've posted a number of items that have been on the preliminary lists that I've seen. There IS no additional information that is being withheld.

-B

Yes, you're very funny.

What is being withheld is any official information about the process of deciding. I keep getting that fnet is not an official source of information for USFA. I am truly grateful that you gave us as much information as you have, but do we now consider that this is the official source? If so, there really should be a link from the USFA website, for those who have not found this site yet. If not, then my statement stands. Official information is being withheld. Saying that Kurt is out of the office and will not answer any emails for some amount of time about an issue this big is really not conducive to trust. He can't go to a Starbucks and log onto his email? I am one of the least computer savvy people I know, and I do that sometimes. I would really like official (or at least unofficial) answers to some of these questions. Who decides what is a waiverable reason? Do we have any input at all? Who gets to decide? Is anybody in the decision making process interested in how this will impact fencers, parents, coaches, retinue? If anyone is interested, why is there no mechanism for soliciting or receiving input?

[teacup]

Whether or not the Stay & Play program, as currently constituted (or as constituted once the various variables are settled) is a good choice for US Fencing is something which can be reasonably debated. And a decision that needs to be made by some person or group of people (in this case Kurt and/or the rest of the staff). It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to say that there can be no such program that could ever be accepted.

-B

I agree that there may be benefits with such a program but the main problem is if it truly isn't the best financial or whatever option for an individual how can you force them to use it?

Encouraging people to use THS, having rooms available closer to the event, guaranteeing that THS will match the lowest rate, are all good things that would probably make more people book at the host hotels and therefore financially benefit the USFA but people still need to be the ones that ultimately decide what is best for them.

[occasionalfencer]

If you accept that ...we're back to the question of where is the line and who gets to draw it. If you maintain the position that individual free choice is so valuable that the above deal is not sufficient (nor is one with more zeroes added, no matter how large "more" becomes) then I would have to agree that there's an impasse and unlikely to be a solution.

Whether or not the Stay & Play program, as currently constituted (or as constituted once the various variables are settled) is a good choice for US Fencing is something which can be reasonably debated. And a decision that needs to be made by some person or group of people (in this case Kurt and/or the rest of the staff). It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to say that there can be no such program that could ever be accepted.

-B

I would really like to know why a decision this large, truly a policy decision, with so much impact on individual fencers, is being made by the unelected staff? Why did our board not give us any heads up about this being considered?

[oiuyt]

Yes, you're very funny.

I try. Occasionally I even succeed.

Saying that Kurt is out of the office and will not answer any emails for some amount of time about an issue this big is really not conducive to trust. He can't go to a Starbucks and log onto his email? I am one of the least computer savvy people I know, and I do that sometimes.

I don't know where Kurt is. I don't know whether he's on a tournament site visit, at one or more clubs, or rafting in the wilderness with his family miles from the nearest Starbucks. I did happen to know that emails to him are currently getting an "Out of Office" reply that indicates he won't be in the office until Monday. Rather than have 50 people get that response to their suggestions/comments/feedback, I mentioned it here.

He could very well already have read all of the emails that have been sent to him. Whether at a local Starbucks or on his laptop from the comfort of a hotel room or his house. Or he could really be out of the reach of email for another 2 days. I have no way to determine which with the information available to me currently.

Encouraging people to use THS, having rooms available closer to the event, guaranteeing that THS will match the lowest rate, are all good things that would probably make more people book at the host hotels and therefore financially benefit the USFA.

I completely agree that these are all good things that would improve the situation from what we have had in the past. I haven't argued against ANY of the points made thus far in either of the two threads of ways to improve the current THS situation. I think the majority of the suggestions are good. Some are obvious things that US Fencing and/or THS should have done years ago, others are non-obvious improvements that demonstrate how involving the membership in planning processes can (and almost assuredly will) be beneficial in meeting goals for revenue generation (among many other things).

And here we get to the point made in the edit-added paragraph in my previous post. There are lots of ways to accomplish our goals. Some are better than others. Some are probably better than Stay & Play.

So far in these threads I've mostly been trying to provide what information I have about the Stay & Play program, based on the preliminary information which I've seen. Based on second-hand accounts of the presentation in Dallas, some of the details have already changed since the last information I have. Presumably more have changed since then. I plan to continue to answer questions about the program when I have the answers, and provide information/details when it's available to me.

-B