USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[fdad]

At the risk of spinning the thread (or some portion of it) off in an unrelated direction following a hypothetical that has not been formally proposed....

What do you suppose the reaction here on FNet would have been to an announcement coming out of Dallas that NAC fees had been increased to $70 registration and $70 per event?

Even if it included a statement that it was a one-(or two-)year temporary measure?

What if the announcement had been that membership fees were being increased by $10/year?

Rather than trying to predict the reaction of the membership and basing the decision on the accuracy of that prediction, why not ask?

Offer the membership the opportunity to provide feedback (web-based survey?) on a set of options to reduce the debt, possibly including: a) stay and play, b) one time membership surcharge (possibly exampting 3 year renewals?), c) increased NAC registration fees.

I cannot tell you what most people would choose, though I suspect frequent NAC attandees would prefer "b" (since the surcharge ("a") spread across many members would likely be less than the increase associated with "c").

[occasionalfencer]

I think USFA needs to slow down this whole process. And yes, I did send an email to Kurt requesting that they reevaluate the process and let the membership have a voice in the decision.

Nannette

Good! Now call or email as many other fencers who don't read fnet and let them know they need to do the same. Also call or email other staff and board members.

This is not an organized letter writing campaign, with form letters for you just to add your name. As far as I know, the leak of the secret information was too recent, and the need for action too immediate to organize anything. So individuals just need to do whatever they can.

And Brad, yes I know you say it wasn't a leak, and I still keep calling it that. That is because that is exactly what it seems like. An unofficial person let out the unofficial information on an unofficial website. Apparently we were not supposed to know until it was already up and running, or not running as the case may be. So far the official information consists largely of "that is not decided yet". Not reassuring.

[keith]

Whether or not that might be a possible side effect, I don't believe it's reasonable to consider that as a likely primary purpose. If for no other reason than that there are many easier ways to accomplish that goal.

You seem to be confusing intentions with consequences.

The budget passed by the Board in July assumed that Stay & Play would be in place and used the renegotiated figures for room rates (for the various cities where such had been accomplished), venue rates (in the case of Atlanta), and increased rebate figures.

Which sort of negates the need for dialog.

At the risk of spinning the thread (or some portion of it) off in an unrelated direction following a hypothetical that has not been formally proposed....

What do you suppose the reaction here on FNet would have been to an announcement coming out of Dallas that NAC fees had been increased to $70 registration and $70 per event?

Even if it included a statement that it was a one-(or two-)year temporary measure?

What if the announcement had been that membership fees were being increased by $10/year?

-B

As you pointed out, the budget has been voted on. Bit late to open the discussion to the floor.

[fencerwallet]

The budget passed by the Board in July assumed that Stay & Play would be in place and used the renegotiated figures for room rates (for the various cities where such had been accomplished), venue rates (in the case of Atlanta), and increased rebate figures.
-B

Nice. The assumption of a "Stay & P[l]ay" revenue stream was incorporated into the upcoming operating budget of an entity that cannot seem to formulate a workable budget. Go figure.

[flechewounds]

It is my opinion that if NAC fees were increased as per your example above, the response of f.net would be MUCH DIFFERENT than what we have now regarding the THS nonsense. That is because the THS deal removes far too much freedom of choice, where by contrast, an increase in fees can still be offset by people using other means to save money on travel and hotel fees. I believe the membership is sympathetic to the current economic situation and would accept increased fees without much, if any, protest at all. It is the sneaky, backroom, complex, and poorly explained nature of the THS deal that has people upset.

I agree with Pillow on this. A fee increase isn't unreasonable - particularly if it is needed to cover the expenses of an event.

Before I get pitchforks, etc., thrown at me, think of it this way...

The value provided at NACs/Nationals is actually pretty good considering the resources brought together - bout/armorer/referee, equipment, etc. It represents a pretty good value for the fencer. Raising that price by 10 or 20 (I'd go to the registration fee - I think that we're past the point on charges where the individual event is the scaling force) would be annoying, but tolerable - and would go directly into the USFA's coffers.

As was said, I can then choose to offset the additional cost by adjusting my travel and dining options (maybe get a room with a kitchen and eat in a couple of times), by one less Starbucks per day, etc. At least I can manage my expenses.

That is the problem with the THS deal - I am prevented from managing my expenses. Instead, I have to deal with them - they're unusable web site, their roulette-wheel accomodations, and their high prices. I don't want to deal with them. Period.

THS clearly knows where its bread is buttered. I'm sure that the ExComm and AD's rooms are always perfect. That has not been the experience of the great unwashed, however. And it's our money.

[flechewounds]

...snip

The budget passed by the Board in July assumed that Stay & Play would be in place and used the renegotiated figures for room rates (for the various cities where such had been accomplished), venue rates (in the case of Atlanta), and increased rebate figures

WHAT THE F*CK?????

The budget assumed this was in place? YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!

This is not the sort of thing that should be included in any numbers until tested and vetted by the MEMBERSHIP.

Brad - I'm sorry - but this goes TOO, TOO far and represents a real abuse of the membership...

And before you ask, no, I wasn't at the meeting - the JWF was going on and I had a kid in it...

[dberke]

Nice. The assumption of a "Stay & P[l]ay" revenue stream was incorporated into the upcoming operating budget of an entity that cannot seem to formulate a workable budget. Go figure.

Can't formulate a workable budget? In case you hadn't heard, the USFA did pretty well last year - they came in on-budget and wound up ahead about $240k this past season. And that's during a recession.

Earlier in the thread somone suggested that all NACs lose money. Again, if you actually read the budget report(I think Brad posted it with the BoD agenda), you'll see that every event this past season except for one came out ahead by (on average) $65k. The one that didn't (NAC C) lost $11k.

Also, keep in mind that a budget is a forcast and isn't set in stone. If the S&P program doesn't happen, the budget can be adjusted. The current forecast is to net $550k on all national events combined next season. If S&P doesn't happen, add back the estimated $120k that the USFA is supposed to save and we still net $430k.

Dan

[flechewounds]

Can't formulate a workable budget? In case you hadn't heard, the USFA did pretty well last year - they came in on-budget and wound up ahead about $240k this past season. And that's during a recession.

Earlier in the thread somone suggested that all NACs lose money. Again, if you actually read the budget report(I think Brad posted it with the BoD agenda), you'll see that every event this past season except for one came out ahead by (on average) $65k. The one that didn't (NAC C) lost $11k.

Also, keep in mind that a budget is a forcast and isn't set in stone. If the S&P program doesn't happen, the budget can be adjusted. The current forecast is to net $550k on all national events combined next season. If S&P doesn't happen, add back the estimated $120k that the USFA is supposed to save and we still net $430k.

Dan

Putting Stay and Pay in the budget at this point was MISMANAGEMENT. Why? It sets up a program that is potentially abusive to the membership as a fait accompli. No trial, no "let get the standards and procedures out to the membership," nothing.

It should not be in the budget. If this turkey sees the light of day and makes some extra cash, we should be pleasantly surprised at that point.

[keith]

Also, keep in mind that a budget is a forcast and isn't set in stone. If the S&P program doesn't happen, the budget can be adjusted. The current forecast is to net $550k on all national events combined next season. If S&P doesn't happen, add back the estimated $120k that the USFA is supposed to save and we still net $430k.

So the USFA is planning on a surplus of several hundred thousand dollars while simultaneously looking forward to generating a little more revenue from the membership? In a recession. Nice.

[RITFencing]

I just emailed my opinion, or at least a cleaned up, suitable for public expression version of my opinion of this proposed policy to Kurt Achiele and Kalle Weeks. I encourage all USFA members, whatever their opinions are, to do the same.

I won't say much more here, because this proposition makes me angry enough to say something which could get me in trouble.

[dberke]

So the USFA is planning on a surplus of several hundred thousand dollars while simultaneously looking forward to generating a little more revenue from the membership? In a recession. Nice.

No, that money would be used to pay off existing debts, such as money owed to referees, etc. How is that not obvious?

Dan

[edew]

So the USFA is planning on a surplus of several hundred thousand dollars while simultaneously looking forward to generating a little more revenue from the membership? In a recession. Nice.

Well, this one-time (probably) surplus will go towards paying off that massive debt they incurred from the previous administration.

[seak]

The First Law of Policy Analysis: It doesn't matter what you were thinking when you made the rule, all that should be considered are the predictable results of the rule.

HAH, then again I clearly know nothing about this

Seriously for those of you who hate THS and have a moral opposition to the ideas behind S&P fair enough that's your opinion and a mostly reasonable one (when not taken to the extreme of absolutes). Keep in mind that the USFA needs to make money somewhere, and pushing the costs to registration hurts people as well.

For the rest of you, gathering pitchforks before we actually know the details of the plan is a tad premature, though like you it would be nice if we could know these details more then a half-minute before the plan is put in place.

Keith: The USFA is over a million dollars in debt

[brtech]

Could someone clear up one point for me?

Who is making the decision on S&P? Staff, EC or Board?

[keith]

No, that money would be used to pay off existing debts, such as money owed to referees, etc. How is that not obvious?

Dan

So that is not an ongoing surplus?

This is of course the problem with being rude to people about not reading the accounts.

If that money is not in fact a surplus, as you claimed, but rather funds required to pay debts associated with the running of NACS, which you know seem to be claiming, then questioning the ability of the USFA to run a budget is a valid criticism.

Nice cake if you can get it.

[keith]

Keith: The USFA is over a million dollars in debt

Yes?

The problem is making some form of transparent assessment of priorities. I don't see that going on.

If we are to believe the budget process the NACs and general membership services are all running in the black.

Assuming things just run as is, by the end of the quad that debt should be cleared.

I am, of course, missing something

[oiuyt]

Who is making the decision on S&P? Staff, EC or Board?

Staff.

So that is not an ongoing surplus?

This is of course the problem with being rude to people about not reading the accounts.

If that money is not in fact a surplus, as you claimed, but rather funds required to pay debts associated with the running of NACS, which you know seem to be claiming, then questioning the ability of the USFA to run a budget is a valid criticism.

The surplus cited is a surplus in the 09-10 budget.

There is also a large accumulated deficit, primarily from the 06-07 and 07-08 seasons. 08-09 made a small dent in the accumulated deficit by running a 200+k surplus. 09-10 is projected to make more progress. There is still projected to be a sub-zero balance at the end of 09-10, which will have to be cleared in future years.

The budget report given to the Board earlier this month is also posted in the OP of the Board agenda thread. It includes numbers from 08-09 as well as the budget for 09-10. If you have questions about those numbers after reading it we can probably provide answers.

-B

[keith]

There is also a large accumulated deficit, primarily from the 06-07 and 07-08 seasons. 08-09 made a small dent in the accumulated deficit by running a 200+k surplus. 09-10 is projected to make more progress. There is still projected to be a sub-zero balance at the end of 09-10, which will have to be cleared in future years.

.... and would it be right to assume that the currently assumed operating surplus cannot be assumed as the budget demands shift towards the end of the quad?

[dberke]

So that is not an ongoing surplus?

This is of course the problem with being rude to people about not reading the accounts.

If that money is not in fact a surplus, as you claimed, but rather funds required to pay debts associated with the running of NACS, which you know seem to be claiming, then questioning the ability of the USFA to run a budget is a valid criticism.

Nice cake if you can get it.

The budget shows the exepected profit/loss for next season's items. It shows a surplus for next season's new expenses and liabilities. It does not include prior debts since those are not new.

Until the USFA has paid off its debts, maximizing the surplus is a reasonable goal. Once we've caught up, that surplus doesn't need to be as large... but it still has to remain positive so that we don't wind up in this position again.

On July 1st of 2008, the USFA owed nearly $1.8 million. That number is down to $1.3 million as of July 1st 2009. That seems to indicate someone is doing something right, doesn't it?

Dan

[keith]

On July 1st of 2008, the USFA owed nearly $1.8 million. That number is down to $1.3 million as of July 1st 2009. That seems to indicate someone is doing something right, doesn't it?

The BoD does deserve credit for getting the budget back in the black and clearing debt. Of course, as your numbers point out, the arguement for making additional charges to the membership is quite weak. After all with good management the USFA will clear it's debts in short order simply by holding to its current budget.