USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[flechewounds]

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

Brad -

I can't see any way that the Stay and Pay program, as constituted, works.

Where/how I stay depends on the wallet. When the USFA pays (when I'm refereeing), it can choose where I stay. Frankly, although I'd grumble, it could also choose my airline (as long as it's willing to front the money), my taxi company, my parking garage, etc. The USFA is paying, in that case, and it is reasonable for them to arrange the best deal they can.

It all changes if I'm paying (e.g., not working for the USFA). In that case, I should be able to make the choice based upon the variables that are important to me. Since I'm paying the bill, I need to choose.

It is then incumbent for the USFA and THS to make the THS choice the overall best available. Sure, some may be cheaper, some may be better points programs, etc. But if the USFA and THS consistently deliver the best overall value and does it conveniently and with good customer service, people will gravitate to it. There will always be a few oddballs (like me) out there who prefer having a car and a kitchen, but our numbers will get smaller over time.

The Stay and Pay program, however, doesn't promise better customer service, more convenience or the best overall value. Instead it feels like a backhanded revenue enhancing move - a way for the USFA to reach into our hotel rooms and dining options and extract yet another pound of flesh.

Gary.

[occasionalfencer]

Here are all the problems, as I see them, more or less in order:

Up to now, the USFA has had a contract with the fencer- if you pay your dues, you can register for fencing tournaments, get points, medals, glory, etc. All of a sudden, with no notice, this contract is changed to if you pay your dues, and will also pay a particular private company, then you can register for fencing tournaments, etc.

This particular private company is one that many fencers have already had bad experiences with. Rather than improving the company, and making it a more attractive service, the company is seeking a stranglehold on our ability to participate in fencing tournaments. Once it has the monopoly, it will have no incentive to improve. Quite the contrary.

This company, with a proven track record of messing up their own job, of hotel reservations, will now have the opportunity to mess up registrations for fencing tournaments, with which they have no experience.

Even when the company is doing its job competently (making hotel reservations) many people do not want this service. They think they can suit themselves better.

The supposed benefits to this program are ephemeral at best. We keep hearing that the USFA will save untold thousands of dollars, but as someone said above, better than I can, financial instruments by which everyone spends less, and still profits, are somewhat suspect these days. This point alone deserves a page or two. For instance, there does not seem to be any provision for additional staff to handle the waivers. So our current staff will work overtime? Or the waivers will take no time at all? Or maybe there will be more staff, and that will cost money, and then where is the saving?

Volleyball players and teams are really not that much like fencers.

This huge change in policy was developed, decided on and is being implemented without clarity or communication with the people most affected. Us. This is the new administration, who promised to be more open and honest with us.

Did I leave out anything?

[flechewounds]

Here are all the problems, as I see them, more or less in order:

Up to now, the USFA has had a contract with the fencer- if you pay your dues, you can register for fencing tournaments, get points, medals, glory, etc. All of a sudden, with no notice, this contract is changed to if you pay your dues, and will also pay a particular private company, then you can register for fencing tournaments, etc.

This particular private company is one that many fencers have already had bad experiences with. Rather than improving the company, and making it a more attractive service, the company is seeking a stranglehold on our ability to participate in fencing tournaments. Once it has the monopoly, it will have no incentive to improve. Quite the contrary.

This company, with a proven track record of messing up their own job, of hotel reservations, will now have the opportunity to mess up registrations for fencing tournaments, with which they have no experience.

Even when the company is doing its job competently (making hotel reservations) many people do not want this service. They think they can suit themselves better.

The supposed benefits to this program are ephemeral at best. We keep hearing that the USFA will save untold thousands of dollars, but as someone said above, better than I can, financial instruments by which everyone spends less, and still profits, are somewhat suspect these days. This point alone deserves a page or two. For instance, there does not seem to be any provision for additional staff to handle the waivers. So our current staff will work overtime? Or the waivers will take no time at all? Or maybe there will be more staff, and that will cost money, and then where is the saving?

Volleyball players and teams are really not that much like fencers.

This huge change in policy was developed, decided on and is being implemented without clarity or communication with the people most affected. Us. This is the new administration, who promised to be more open and honest with us.

Did I leave out anything?

Here Here!

One thing that you did leave out - if the USFA compels me to stay somewhere, does the USFA have a duty to ensure that the place is safe and well maintained? I would argue that they have such a duty. If someone gets injured and sues, they'd rationally include the USFA in that lawsuit. Also, I don't think that the USFA could meaningfully waive liability in the waiver that they make us sign - it is unrelated to the event.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The sad part is that I suspect Kurt genuinely and earnestly believes this is a potentially good deal worth pursuing that streamlines and centralizes the hotel registration process, saves families a few bucks, and adds some serious money to the USFA coffers.

It's unfortunate, though, to contemplate such a system in conjunction with a company that has such a checkered past with many fencing families. I'm not sure Kurt was fully cognizant of the level of vitriol many of us have for THS. He may not also have been fully aware of the persistent individualist streak many fencers possess. It's not much of a team sport...where 20 or 30 or more people travel as a group, doing what they are told. It's families and individuals, for the most part; and with the internet being such a valuable tool for pricing research, these small unit constituents can often find far better deals than the for-profit booking juggernaut.

In some ways, this smacks of the debacle looming if health care reform proceeds without a public plan option: without competition, all we are doing is funneling involuntary, mandatory-participation streams of consumers into the maws of organizations that have been proven to not place the best interests of the consumers first and foremost. And if there is not a competitive option, what motivation does the company have to go out of its way providing superior customer service?

[flechewounds]

In some ways, this smacks of the debacle looming if health care reform proceeds without a public plan option: without competition, all we are doing is funneling involuntary, mandatory-participation streams of consumers into the maws of organizations that have been proven to not place the best interests of the consumers first and foremost. And if there is not a competitive option, what motivation does the company have to go out of its way providing superior customer service?

Cap'n - couldn't agree more...

[fencingwallet]

I don't get this. It is becoming clear that the new leadership could care less about major portions of the membership, other than to pick their pockets.

Shouldn't there be an effort to serve the membership, i.e., perhaps finding an alternative or, god forbid, a better company than THS? Is there not another company that could do the job? Or, at least, would not seeking out a viable competitor allow leadership to then, with balls intact, negotiate with leverage on behalf of membership, in the midst of a bad economy, while placing events in empty, recession-savaged cities? (Half of downtown St. Louis was vacant. Columbus was no boom town. Why are there still penalties in these contracts, as if this were booming economic times? I understand some of those contracts may have been negotiated some time ago in better times, but that is no excuse now).

I don't care one bit about THS's economic health. Hell with them. If they can't convince me to use them because they are the best option, it's their fault.

Forcing the use of a particular company in order to be entitled to compete poses some serious issues. What if I simply cannot afford it? Isn't that discriminatory? Do I have to submit financial statements to prove my economic destitution in order to get a waiver? Certainly, while raised membership dues could be justified to cover administration costs, there is no justification for this attempted discriminatory revenue stream where options exist. The USFA Bylaws, Article XLI, in part provides:

"4.Section No Unlawful Discrimination. Except as may be required by the rules of competitions, all competitions shall be open without discrimination, provided, however, this provision shall not preclude the USFA from conducting competitions to which entries are limited based on age, sex, or skill levels or establishing qualifying criteria for the entry to certain events."

Is financial wherewithal now being deemed by the Board of Directors as qualifying criteria?

[Philistine]

{snip} 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 think one of the best things about the internet and email and all of modern communications technology is it allows for the rapid transfer of information.

I think one of the worst things is that it leads to unrealistic expectations about instant responses.

Until someone with a handle on the actual status is available, it's premature to be complaining about a lack of response. He won't be available until Monday at the very earliest--and this probably isn't the most pressing issue he's likely to have when he gets back.

{snip}
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?

I agree wholeheartedly--I just think it's a bit early to be grabbing the pitchforks and lighting the torches.

I'm with Capt. Slo-Mo--I think the plan was probably seen as a win-win-win, and I expect the.... vehemence... that's come out here (and likely in a slew of emails) has come as a surprise.

To my mind, it'll be a good test of how the ED will be dealing with issues relating to the general membership in the future.

While, like most who've posted, I'm skeptical about the plan as sketched out, I do think it's possible some sort of plan might be workable. One thing to remember, the USFA is in a deep, deep financial hole. Significantly more revenue has to come in from somewhere and/or expenses have to be cut sharply. No realistic plan is going to be painless. An equivalent revenue plan would be to raise dues by $50-60/yr.

Given that this plan has the potential to impose hundreds of extra dollars of expenses on some people due to flight and hotel expenses, I think it deserves to be explained to the membership, and the membership be allowed to express their concerns before the decision is made to do it--and I'm a bit uncomfortable with this decision being made solely by the Executive Director--I think it's one, if it's to be made, that should be done by the Board. But I think we're getting a bit worked up on incomplete information, so far (IMHO).

--Philistine

[Capt. Slo-mo]

But I think we're getting a bit worked up on incomplete information, so far (IMHO).
--Philistine

Oh.

Hmmm....Say, does anyone know a safe way to detension a flamagel catapult, once the projectile has been lit?

[edew]

USFA is in a financial hole, but I can't imagine this stay and play would generate much revenue for the USFA. Already, they're getting the venue for dirt cheap. I heard that the Gaylord venue was gotten for free. How much cheaper can it get? If they're expecting the hotels to rebate back to USFA for room-nights by fencers, then they can't expect the hotels to offer a cheap price.

I can't imagine USFA charging more for NACs: $120 for the first event is in the realm of those who are actively chasing national team positions. Who the heck is going if they expect to not make top-32?

The biggest cost is officials. The FOC has to be reined in on expenses. Use more local referees, if possible, and reduce staffing at NACs.

Maybe refs should put a tip jar on the table next to the scoresheet.

[eac]

If you read the big multi-page thing Kurt wrote in the agenda, it sounds like he actually is doing enormously many enormously useful things for the USFA, and so is highly likely to have a good reason for not answering email from angry scrubs.

I'm an angry scrub for these purposes, and so I would somewhat like it if he paid attention to this, but I actually am pleased that he's being so amazingly proactive about promoting the sport in general, and so easily forgive the lack of email.

[teacup]

Many fencing venues are held in convention centers in the financial districts of cities where by Friday afternoon pretty much the whole area shuts down. Few restaurants remain open, few grocery stores, etc.

Fencers are not like the typical convention center attendees who show up as individuals for a business conference during the week. (This is why the venues are cheaper.)

Two things happen, the host THS hotels don't have enough two double/queen rooms and the hotel restaurant staff cannot handle the number of people who want food service.

If everyone is "forced" to use the THS host hotels, unless major changes are made, how will these hotels handle the demand for double beds and food?

[Philistine]

USFA is in a financial hole, but I can't imagine this stay and play would generate much revenue for the USFA. Already, they're getting the venue for dirt cheap. I heard that the Gaylord venue was gotten for free. How much cheaper can it get? If they're expecting the hotels to rebate back to USFA for room-nights by fencers, then they can't expect the hotels to offer a cheap price.

IIRC, the # being tossed around is ~$100K to $120K. AIUI, that's partially lower venue prices, partially reduced hotels for USFA-reimbursed stays, and partially direct payments to the USFA from SHS.

For an order-of-magnitude check, according to this site discussing US Volleyball's program with THS, it seems like USV is getting $12/room (while THS gets 10%).

As a side note, as near as I can tell, the "price match" THS guarantees (at least to US Volleyball) does not include "single/king bedded rooms, employee rates, government rates and AARP rates." THS/Volleyball policy for Boys JO Championships, July 09. Also the "waiver" conditions for USV don't seem to have a "crashing with my buddy" type of exemption. (Though volleyball probably has much more of an interest in making sure the whole team is in the same place than fencing does).

I can't imagine USFA charging more for NACs: $120 for the first event is in the realm of those who are actively chasing national team positions. Who the heck is going if they expect to not make top-32?

Isn't the entry fee a fairly minor portion of the NAC cost for anyone who has to fly-in and stay at a hotel? Sure, the current cost (and any increases) will tend to deter local competitors who don't expect to make top-32, but that's arguably a feature, not a bug. (Anyone have any idea of the general percentage of "local" versus fly & stay competitors at a NAC?)

The biggest cost is officials. The FOC has to be reined in on expenses. Use more local referees, if possible, and reduce staffing at NACs.

Well, something's got to give. I think we're probably beyond the point of a little belt-tightening and watching expenses, though certainly those are absolutely necessary, too.

I think the "stay and play" plan is being thought of as a "free" way to get more money. Fencers are paying for hotels anyway, why not get a piece of it. For people who were inclined to use THS before, or those who don't want to put in the substantial effort to track down better deals--"stay and play" is a great idea. It'll likely give them a small decrease in what they'd pay before and will probably increase the offerings available--and give the USFA some money, too.

For those who are willing to put time in to get a cheaper deal and/or are willing to trade off crowding or convenience (or cleanliness ) for a cheaper stay, this is going to impose substantially higher costs, with only a fraction of those higher costs going to the USFA.

--Philistine

[seak]

Isn't the entry fee a fairly minor portion of the NAC cost for anyone who has to fly-in and stay at a hotel? Sure, the current cost (and any increases) will tend to deter local competitors who don't expect to make top-32, but that's arguably a feature, not a bug. (Anyone have any idea of the general percentage of "local" versus fly & stay competitors at a NAC?)

Or for those of us who have figured out ways to substantially lower the air and hotel costs, through reffing, crashing with friends, driving insane hours overnight etc. Most college aged-midtwenties-30 fencers I know fall in this category btw, until they get a real job and can actually afford to live like a normal human .

Really, until we have details on how the waivers will work, and what will be included I think it's really impossible to fairly evaluate the merits of the program.

[edew]

[...]

Isn't the entry fee a fairly minor portion of the NAC cost for anyone who has to fly-in and stay at a hotel? Sure, the current cost (and any increases) will tend to deter local competitors who don't expect to make top-32, but that's arguably a feature, not a bug. (Anyone have any idea of the general percentage of "local" versus fly & stay competitors at a NAC?)

[...]

It used to be. At $120 for one event, for some fencers (contre-sixte?)
that amount could be close to 30 - 60% of the overall cost of competing, depending on the red-eye to red-eye airfare. If it's within something driving distance (even if requiring staying at a hotel), I can find a decently priced hotel and drive there for close to $250 total, so $120 might be 1/3 of the overall cost, not including gas and eats.

[flechewounds]

..snip

The biggest cost is officials. The FOC has to be reined in on expenses. Use more local referees, if possible, and reduce staffing at NACs.

...snip

We tried a different system at the PCC's, which worked very well - and lowered our costs by about 1/3 or so. What we did was pay a single day rate for each referee, leaving the referee to muster their own transportation and hotel.

The rate was adjusted along 3 "rating" variables (1-2, 3-4, 5-below) and 3 geographic variables (day drive, in-section and outside of section). We did not collect receipts for travel or hotel, nor did we pay for them.

A few things happened as a result of this -

1) we didn't have to audit any paperwork. we know where the ref lives and the rating (e.g., the pay scale factors) and we knew if they showed up. That was the only information necessary. We were able to pay 90% of the refs at the close of the event (as with everything, there are always a couple of exceptions/issues). It cost us 1/3 less, too.

2) referees could decide to maximize their income by carpooling, room-sharing, crashing at friends, etc., or could maximize the "family vacation" value by arranging single or off-premise rooms.

3) we didn't guarantee rooms at the hotel - but wound up with comps anyhow. The hotel was smart enough to offer a discounted rate and we publicized it.

This was the Pacific Coast Championships - a 500 person/12 event tournament that occurred over two days (we were done at 6:30 each evening). It does offer a model that could be used at the national level.

What did this prove? If we want to reign in referee costs, we have to stack the incentives in a way that encourages referees to save money (by keeping a chunk of it). It then becomes a win-win situation. Right now, we have just the opposite - referees do not benefit from saving the organization money.

Gary.

[edew]

Well yes. The NAC process does nothing to curb expenses. And at the same time, the referees make very little. It's a lose-lose arrangement between USFA and the general run-of-the-mill referees.

[Morale Officer]

Oh.

Hmmm....Say, does anyone know a safe way to detension a flamagel catapult, once the projectile has been lit?

Fire a warning shot across their bow...

Or for those of us who have figured out ways to substantially lower the air and hotel costs, through reffing, crashing with friends, driving insane hours overnight etc. Most college aged-midtwenties-30 fencers I know fall in this category btw, until they get a real job and can actually afford to live like a normal human .

Really, until we have details on how the waivers will work, and what will be included I think it's really impossible to fairly evaluate the merits of the program.

Unfortunately, even though we get real jobs, some of us STILL can't afford to "live like a normal human" and "treat ourselves" with more expensive hotels (and by that I mean a hotel that costs more than $40 or $50 a night). My idea of "treating myself" here lately is ordering chinese for supper instead of actually cooking.

I looked at the Volleyball exceptions and it doesn't seem like there are provisions for "I'm poor and splitting a really cheap hotel room with 3 other people so I can actually eat AND compete."

Ok, I know, stop, take a breath, nothing is official yet, nothing is final yet, but this is just my thought on the whole idea (the thought of someone at the bottom of the totem pole).

Why limit the size of the competition more than it already is? Just because some higher level fencer doesn't want to have little old me in their pools? I'd probably be an easy win and heck, you might get the chance to teach me something in the process!
Why should you be concerned about not making the top 32? Sometimes going to really huge tournaments is really good experience. I've gone to large tournaments knowing that I wasn't going to make the 80% cut just for the experience. I even had fun (imagine that) and made some good contacts in the process. If and when I can afford to go to a NAC or SN's or whatever (hopefully next season), I'm going to give it a shot! Now, if there are top level fencers who want to be stuck up and tell me that I have no business going to a National Level Tournament for fun and experience, then they can have their opinion, but if I have the money and can make the cut in whatever qualifiers I need to, then I'll be there...for experience and fun...fully knowing I'll probably pull DFL, but someone has to!
If the whole purpose of the "stay and play" program is to weed out people like me (and reduce the size of the tournaments), well then I think you need to take a real good look at where you want the association to go and what you want the sport to become in this country. Or, if you don't want to do that, then change the format. Have qualifiers for qualifiers for qualifiers. Or, when that fails, we could always go to the old Russian standby where you start fencing young, weed out the ones you don't want, and then all you have to do the rest of your life is fence or coach when you can't fence anymore.
If the whole point of the "stay and play" program is to make money for the association, then there needs to be provisions for people like little old me. And provisions OTHER than a waiver that may or may not be approved. Provisions OTHER than a waiver that I have to sign away my first born, show you my tax returns and bank statements for the last 10 years, and provide a written statement from HR at the hospital saying that I really do make next to nothing to prove that I really can't afford the $99 a night hotel room plus entry fees in addition to the fact that I really do need to eat and get to the event in the first place.
I KNOW, stop and take a breath, nothing is finalized, there's no official word, etc. I'm just trying to give the POV of someone at the bottom (in both fencing and money)(and I know that no one likes to hear the voices from the bottom of the totem pole, but everyone had to start somewhere). Not only that, but I know there are very good fencers out there who could make the cut in whatever qualifiers you throw at them that are just as strapped for cash (and maybe more so) than I am. Why weed them out, too? Everything I'm seeing so far with this "stay and play" program sucks...well, with the exception of the potential revenue that will be generated for the USFA, but is making money at the expense of throwing others into deeper debt really a good idea? Or is making money at the expense of not allowing very good fencers who maybe can't afford the THS prices a good idea? I'm just not seeing how this program will benefit everyone. Sorry...just my opinion.

[noodle]

We tried a different system at the PCC's, which worked very well - and lowered our costs by about 1/3 or so. What we did was pay a single day rate for each referee, leaving the referee to muster their own transportation and hotel.

The rate was adjusted along 3 "rating" variables (1-2, 3-4, 5-below) and 3 geographic variables (day drive, in-section and outside of section). We did not collect receipts for travel or hotel, nor did we pay for them.

A few things happened as a result of this -

1) we didn't have to audit any paperwork. we know where the ref lives and the rating (e.g., the pay scale factors) and we knew if they showed up. That was the only information necessary. We were able to pay 90% of the refs at the close of the event (as with everything, there are always a couple of exceptions/issues). It cost us 1/3 less, too.

2) referees could decide to maximize their income by carpooling, room-sharing, crashing at friends, etc., or could maximize the "family vacation" value by arranging single or off-premise rooms.

3) we didn't guarantee rooms at the hotel - but wound up with comps anyhow. The hotel was smart enough to offer a discounted rate and we publicized it.

This was the Pacific Coast Championships - a 500 person/12 event tournament that occurred over two days (we were done at 6:30 each evening). It does offer a model that could be used at the national level.

What did this prove? If we want to reign in referee costs, we have to stack the incentives in a way that encourages referees to save money (by keeping a chunk of it). It then becomes a win-win situation. Right now, we have just the opposite - referees do not benefit from saving the organization money.

Gary.

i've been toying with an idea similar to this. i think its a good road to travel down, especially if you're looking to encourage local refs to come out and play, as well as develop local refs.

[oiuyt]

*Whole bunch of points*

The point of Stay & Play is NOT to reduce the size of tournaments. Or to weed out weaker fencers. Or poorer fencers. Where do these ideas even come from?

The program would include a range of various price points. Considerable more variation than currently available through THS, and with planned expansion as members requests/desires are expressed.

The conversations I've been a part of have indicated that there is extreme flexibility as to what terms could potentially end up in waiverable justifications. Looking at what USA Volleyball put into their waiver process is reasonable, but don't expect our reasons to match theirs. Or even necessarily vaguely resemble theirs.

At no point in any conversation, other than the speculation here from people NOT involved in the process and who were not at the presentation at Nationals, has there been any suggestion of the waiver process taking into account personal financial position. US Fencing will not be asking for notarized tax filings. Or for indentured servitude of yet-to-be-born offspring down to the third generation.

The entire tangent regarding limitations on participation or restrictions on who fences in the tournaments we use to select our National Team is a complete red herring in this thread. Start a thread on that topic and you'll likely get a fair amount of information, as well as debate on how open or restricted our top-level tournaments ought to be. As well as reasons why we might want them either larger or smaller than they are currently.

-B

[misha]

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

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.


.