USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[oiuyt]

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.

I'd say the staff deserves much of the credit. They have done a remarkably good job this season at holding down costs and squeezing out additional savings to balance the significantly worsened general economic environment which would otherwise have wrecked havoc with the budget that was set last July.

Having three more years like 08-09 would not clear our accumulated hole by the end of the quad. And 10-11 and 11-12 WILL be more expensive years. Even with the currently projected 09-10 we probably will not clear the hole this quad. It's just too deep right now, without something completely unexpected such as a 7-figure sponsorship deal or several 6-figure deals. And it's not reasonable to expect anything on that order right now.

-B

[jjefferies]

deleted material
Let me give you a case example of this "surprise" technique. Last year the Harrisburg Division had a late election in September. After the election we found out that our chair would not allow us to use askFRED (except for two major tournaments) and refused to let fencers from outside the division fence in our tournaments (other than the two previously mentioned). We had no idea he planned to do this. We had no control once he decided it. It has been a very frustrating year here in the Harrisburg Division. Now imagine that on a nationwide scale.
: deleted material
Nannette

Uh, Nannette, I don't see how any Division Chair could get away with what you describe and I'm a Division Chair. It is the Division executive Committee made up of the chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer and the MOC or in some divisions such as my own the Division Board made up of the representatives of the clubs in the division which make the determination whether or not to sanction tournaments. Not the Chairman alone. As to askfred that's completely outside of the Chair's reach. The only power a Division might have to ban use of AskFred is to threaten to withhold sanctioning and as I pointed out that's the prerogative of the Division Board not the Chair. And any sanctioned event with the exception of Division required tournaments - like Division qualifiers for SN - are open to all eligible (in the sense of meeting age, sex, classifications) USFA members from anywhere. Admittedly in the name of expediency the Division Exec Board will take short cuts such as announcing a request for sanctioning, giving all the details supplied and asking the Division Executive Members (who are also busy with their own clubs and lives) to discuss and raise objections against essentially automatically granting sanctioning. Withholding sanctioning is a serious matter and is done only with serious reason. And I believe can be appealed to the national office which is rarely fun.

So my point is that either someone is running a game on you or there is some sort of reality disconnect. Suggest reading some of the documents on USFA organization and how things are supposed to work might give you a background to correct any lapses by Division officers. There are several variations of the Division organization I describe above and you can read more if you wish in the Division Operating Guide written by Buz Hurst.

caveat: My description is based on the way NorCal Division has historically been run.

[flechewounds]

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.

My concern arises if they are balancing the budget by forcing fencing families to pay a THS tax through their Stay & Pay program - which appears to be what they did.

Hidden in Brad's explanation was that the revenue generated by Stay & Pay are included in the budget numbers. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE UNTIL THE PROGRAM WAS VETTED, TESTED, AND APPROVED BY THE MEMBERSHIP - NOT BY THE STAFF.

Again, we need to stop this before it becomes the rule.

Here's another question. My kids cannot check into a hotel room - they're too young. If I'm not competing, I can't be prevented from competing because I'm not staying in the venue hotel. If my kids can't check in, how can they be prevented from competing if they're not staying in the venue hotel?

[edew]

Uh, Nannette, I don't see how any Division Chair could get away with what you describe and I'm a Division Chair. It is the Division executive Committee made up of the chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer and the MOC or in some divisions such as my own the Division Board made up of the representatives of the clubs in the division which make the determination whether or not to sanction tournaments. Not the Chairman alone. As to askfred that's completely outside of the Chair's reach. The only power a Division might have to ban use of AskFred is to threaten to withhold sanctioning and as I pointed out that's the prerogative of the Division Board not the Chair. And any sanctioned event with the exception of Division required tournaments - like Division qualifiers for SN - are open to all eligible (in the sense of meeting age, sex, classifications) USFA members from anywhere. Admittedly in the name of expediency the Division Exec Board will take short cuts such as announcing a request for sanctioning, giving all the details supplied and asking the Division Executive Members (who are also busy with their own clubs and lives) to discuss and raise objections against essentially automatically granting sanctioning. Withholding sanctioning is a serious matter and is done only with serious reason. And I believe can be appealed to the national office which is rarely fun.

So my point is that either someone is running a game on you or there is some sort of reality disconnect. Suggest reading some of the documents on USFA organization and how things are supposed to work might give you a background to correct any lapses by Division officers. There are several variations of the Division organization I describe above and you can read more if you wish in the Division Operating Guide written by Buz Hurst.

caveat: My description is based on the way NorCal Division has historically been run.

Non-division required events (like Bay Cup tournaments) may be closed to fencers from within the division, if the division chooses to do so. Don't know what reasonable rationale would make a case for it, but it can be done.

[AllezCat]

Hidden in Brad's explanation was that the revenue generated by Stay & Pay are included in the budget numbers. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE UNTIL THE PROGRAM WAS VETTED, TESTED, AND APPROVED BY THE MEMBERSHIP - NOT BY THE STAFF.

Again, we need to stop this before it becomes the rule.

Stop it? How? You don't actually think you can make the admin staff change their decision once it's been made, do you?

This is all pissing in the wind. If the admin staff has decided this is a good idea, then it will happen, no matter how many people complain or how many problems there are with it. If you provide input, it will be Greatly Appreciated. If you voice concerns, they will be Duly Noted. Heck, they might even be Taken Under Consideration. Then, the national office will do what they always do: Whatever They Want. And I really don't think there's anything the membership, the Board, or even the EC can do about it.

[peet]

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

Staff.

That's just nutty.

This kind of thing should be decided by at least the EC, if not the entire board, and warrants VERY careful consideration.

I don't argue the fiscal/financial point, because it involves too many variables that either aren't yet determined or are simply inaccessible to me. My objection concerns the potential for this decision to impact fencers' eligibility to compete. Put simply, THS has screwed up too many things in the past to be trusted with implementing a system in which an error could result in a fencer being ineligible to compete.

When THS first appeared on the fencing scene, everyone at my club used it. Very quickly, enough of us had bad experiences with fouled up reservations and other problems that most of us stopped using THS. We hated using THS so much that once, when the venue hotel told us that fencers HAD to go through THS, we hung up, called back 5 minutes later, and lied to the hotel about our reason for wanting reservations ("business meeting"). Poof! rooms aplenty...

If this were any other question affecting eligibility to compete (qualification paths, fencer rating systems, etc), it would be a matter for the full BoD, and much discussion. I see this no differently. I really don't think the office staff should make this decision by themselves. They may not fully appreciate the poor experience many fencers have had with THS.

-p

[Phrogger]

Wow. This thread grows faster than I can read it.

Obviously the USFA must make money and like every other organization out there right now, must pass on these fees to its membership. At least they can conveniently blame the economy rather than previous poor planning.

If I had a vote, I'd prefer the USFA to increase event registration fees, then offer a DISCOUNT to anyone who uses THS. This would have a positive psychological outcome rather than the negative one it has obviously inspired.

[piste off]

Can we please discuss something that is less emotionally charged? Perhaps NJ fencing politics or Korfanty?

R-

[fencerX]

Can we please discuss something that is less emotionally charged? Perhaps NJ fencing politics

THS is based in NJ go figure.

[Peach]

Can we please discuss something that is less emotionally charged? Perhaps NJ fencing politics or Korfanty?

R-

The USA didn't really land a man on the moon.

[warlordkenobi]

The USA didn't really land a man on the moon.

Neil Armstrong's a woman? Wow I guess you learn something every day.

[fencerX]

[teacup]

Prior to the 2008-09 season, I happily used THS for the majority of my hotel reservations. They offered a fair, often discounted price for rooms in the hotels adjacent to venues and luckily, I had few problems or issues with them.

At the beginning of the 2008 season, the bottom fell out of the economy with the amount of business and personal travel plummeting. At the time, I posted that I wondered if the USFA would be renegotiating contracts to reflect the fact that hotel prices were falling.

As the season progressed and the economy worsened, hotels offered steeper discounts, yet THS prices were the same. Personally, I found much better deals at the host hotels either at the hotel directly or other websites thus canceling my reservations with THS. (I had asked for price matching from THS in the past but they didn't do anything.)

If I canceled my bookings with THS, my speculation is that so did many others. Therefore my questions are, "Did the USFA receive less revenue this last season than anticipated from THS bookings? Was an effort made to renegotiate contract prices during the season or at least ask, demand THS to match advertised prices?, Is the Stay and Play concept in response to decreased revenue from THS bookings?"

Rather than forcing people to use THS, can't the USFA insist that THS match lower advertised prices?

[piste off]

The USA didn't really land a man on the moon.

But the USFA members might if this goes through; the guy who thought of the idea.

R-

[Morale Officer]

But the USFA members might if this goes through; the guy who thought of the idea.

R-

Just remember, all of the planets revolve around the earth...

[gatun.czone]

Non-division required events (like Bay Cup tournaments) may be closed to fencers from within the division, if the division chooses to do so. Don't know what reasonable rationale would make a case for it, but it can be done.

Reason had nothing to do with it unfortunately. But the election is over and we are moving on.

Nannette

[hello?]

Can we please discuss something that is less emotionally charged? Perhaps NJ fencing politics or Korfanty?

R-

Too funny.

[hello?]

T

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,

-B

Well, it seems that "the people involved in the process" amount to "staff" or to "Kurt" (who doesn't read fencing.net and is on vacation). So, yes, most of us here are just speculating/venting (Guilty). As to not being at the presentation at Nationals, I, for one, was at the Gaylord for 7 days but arrived on the 6th and missed the meeting. THS rates made it silly (as much as I do enjoy hanging out at these things) to stay extra days just to attend -- particularly when it seemed that no momentous decisions would be discussed or made, based on the agenda.......Again, I have a feeling that this "Stay and Fence" program might actually be a GOOD thing for ME personally (I usually book through THS, despite many errors and headaches -- because I am lazy, busy, and generally like to stay at the host hotel), but have many friends who don't for very valid reasons (they can't afford hotels, period, and crash on the floor of friends' rooms; they book hotel/flight/car packages; they drive what I would consider to be ridiculous drives...It's THEIR business). I think the outrage expressed here is due to the fact that people will now (it seems) be forced to do something that they had absolutely no say about. I think it would have been a good idea for Kurt/THS to have several (beginning of Nationals, middle of Nationals, end of Nationals) 'presentations' to the Membership announcing their Plan and why they thought it would benefit "All." I am not doubting, in any way, the thought that this was done thinking it was a win-win situation for all (I have nothing but respect for the people who run/plan these tournaments and know they are not in it to 'screw' the membership.)...Quite simply, I just question: (1) relying on THS, an organization that time and time again has generated outrage from USFA members because of botched reservations, not to botch registrations, and (2) the way the "Fence and Stay" (or whatever it's called) was presented (or not) to the membership and the fact that the membership had no voice until after it seems to have been a done-deal. Shoot, I hope it works. It sounds like we have to deal with it....

[flechewounds]

Well, it seems that "the people involved in the process" amount to "staff" or to "Kurt" (who doesn't read fencing.net and is on vacation). So, yes, most of us here are just speculating/venting (Guilty). As to not being at the presentation at Nationals, I, for one, was at the Gaylord for 7 days but arrived on the 6th and missed the meeting. THS rates made it silly (as much as I do enjoy hanging out at these things) to stay extra days just to attend -- particularly when it seemed that no momentous decisions would be discussed or made, based on the agenda.......Again, I have a feeling that this "Stay and Fence" program might actually be a GOOD thing for ME personally (I usually book through THS, despite many errors and headaches -- because I am lazy, busy, and generally like to stay at the host hotel), but have many friends who don't for very valid reasons (they can't afford hotels, period, and crash on the floor of friends' rooms; they book hotel/flight/car packages; they drive what I would consider to be ridiculous drives...It's THEIR business). I think the outrage expressed here is due to the fact that people will now (it seems) be forced to do something that they had absolutely no say about. I think it would have been a good idea for Kurt/THS to have several (beginning of Nationals, middle of Nationals, end of Nationals) 'presentations' to the Membership announcing their Plan and why they thought it would benefit "All." I am not doubting, in any way, the thought that this was done thinking it was a win-win situation for all (I have nothing but respect for the people who run/plan these tournaments and know they are not in it to 'screw' the membership.)...Quite simply, I just question: (1) relying on THS, an organization that time and time again has generated outrage from USFA members because of botched reservations, not to botch registrations, and (2) the way the "Fence and Stay" (or whatever it's called) was presented (or not) to the membership and the fact that the membership had no voice until after it seems to have been a done-deal. Shoot, I hope it works. It sounds like we have to deal with it....

The problem is, in all likelihood, naivety. Vendors often cook up this kind of program because it is really easy to sell to the organization - who doesn't like free money. Buyers don't do more than one of these kind of deals, so in essence, they're naive when it comes to long-term services deal. If the buyer is smart enough to hire an attorney with significant experience in these kind of deals, a couple of interesting things happen.

First, the deal slows down dramatically because the attorney asks for measurable "Service Levels" with financial penalties and termination triggers. The vendor says stuff like "trust us," or "we don't make money if you don't make money," lines that are generally untrue. But they start to recognize that their bluff is being called. They then call the client's senior management and tell them that the client's attorney is slowing down the deal or otherwise changing the agreed-upon terms - and "can't the deal just be done on our (vendor) paper?"

Second, the vendor claims that any change will change the pricing of the deal - so the only way to get their financial benefit is to use their paper (which is, of course, one-sided). However, I have empirical evidence that this is almost never the case. But, again, it takes the benefit of experience (which the USFA has none) to be able to enter into this kind of deal with any protections.

Once the deal is in place, management becomes a challenge, as in-house personnel often has little experience managing these kind of deals (we've seen that with the THS challenges so far - the USFA hasn't been able to manage the quality issues with THS). But, since the unhappiness is not directly felt by the management (they don't use the services in the same way), they don't deal with the problem - and the revenue share keeps them from terminating.

In the second year, the vendor will come up to management and inform them that the pricing model isn't working for them - that revenue projections are not being met and that the pricing will need to change to meet the revenue share commitments. Of course, the USFA has a moral hazard issue - it doesn't hurt them directly to increase the prices, only to reduce the revenue share - so prices increase.

Even in the best-run organization, vendor management is a key concern. The USFA has h ad management challenges and there is little reason to expect or believe that they will be able to manage this deal. Add to that a vendor that has a history of problems, there is little goodwill to expect that this deal will do anything but screw the membership - intentionally or otherwise.

The USFA needs to build more goodwill before I would trust them to manage this kind of deal. Kurt & Co., while off to a promising start, have not yet proven that they can handle this sort of thing. THS has to build a lot more goodwill before the membership would be comfortable with them. They haven't done this yet. Instead, they're saying "trust us to get it right" and sign on to a turkey of a deal - and force those people unhappy with our service to use it.

[edew]

Gary,

I wonder whether this vendor management issue might also pertain to other vendors that USFA patronizes. I'm thinking of the insurance company, Merkel, that USFA works with for fencing clubs. Yes, their premiums are very good (I guess, haven't price shopped), but what exactly are we getting? I have spoken with several people who tell me that the "what exactly are we getting" is rather vague.