State of the Association

[oiuyt]

This is probably a massively naive question, but why didn't the USFA take out structured loans to pay manage the issue instead of (effectively) borrowing it from the USOC, the venues, and the officials?

US Fencing didn't realize there was a problem until we were $1.7MM in the hole* and already had large outstanding balances or commitments to the USOC, venues, officials, athletes, and maxed out credit cards and a maxed out line of credit.

The USOC debt was not actually incurred in the same way as the rest. The USOC took responsibility for financial operations covering the final Olympic team preparations in the months leading up to Beijing. After it was done their accounting showed that they not only spent all of the money that they were going to grant to US Fencing during that time (which was withheld as the USOC was handling the funding directly), but had spent a couple hundred thousand beyond their/our budget for the covered items. Thus a debt to the USOC was created to pay back what they'd (over)spent on our behalf.

As to how/why US Fencing got $1.7MM in the red without discovering the problem sooner....
The March 2009 Letter is probably the best answer.

-B

* More correctly, $1.1MM in the hole, with commitments that would eventually take us to $1.7MM.

[BOliver]

Note that Tauber was (is?) sponsored by Bayer Pharmaceuticals with tax credits to offset the costs. The Europeans do things differently than we do... The US has little truck with government sponsored sports, except at the local level, and that's declining. We leave it up to Nike and Coke... Now, if we could get some of the Federal bailout money to go to some big corporation, in exchange for some corporate sponsorship of fencing.... (is that flying pigs I see?)

gladius makes a very good point...

Tauberbischofsheim in Germany may serve as an example. I don’t know how it is currently being operated but in the past it was used as a centralized training facility for the German national team. It was also big enough to host World Cups and national events. If I recall correctly, Tauber was actually a fencing club in a small town that was developed into a national training facility by Emil Beck. When I visited around 1995-96 it was a large facility with several large halls that could be reconfigured for other sports. There were offices for national coaches and staff. I don’t really know how it was funded but it appears that several corporate sponsors were involved.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The USOC took responsibility for financial operations covering the final Olympic team preparations in the months leading up to Beijing. After it was done their accounting showed that they not only spent all of the money that they were going to grant to US Fencing during that time (which was withheld as the USOC was handling the funding directly), but had spent a couple hundred thousand beyond their/our budget for the covered items. {snip}

What is it about high-level fencing that lets everybody wildly overspend the budget?

More seriously, was it understood that the USOC would be making payments only based on its budget or was it understood beforehand that because they were taking over, they would be making substantial payments over and above their actual grants?

The reasons on why you'd pay the USOC first (because they're your major funding source and sanctioning body) and venues made sense to me.

--Philistine

[Purple Fencer]

Referees are being treated as vendors, not employees. And they are being treated as the least important vendors.

No....those are the armorers...

[fdad]

No....those are the armorers...

Don't they get paid on time, in used tip tape?

[KD5MDK]

What is it about high-level fencing that lets everybody wildly overspend the budget?

Maybe it's a sign of taking it super seriously.

More seriously, was it understood that the USOC would be making payments only based on its budget or was it understood beforehand that because they were taking over, they would be making substantial payments over and above their actual grants?

My impression from various people I've talked to (none of whom are Kurt) is that it was not expected that the USOC would spend more than we had been allocated. Or at least nowhere near that much.

I may be wrong, but I also think he overplays the risk of the USOC taking away NGB status. After they took over HP for the Olympics, and we have shown good faith in compliance with their numerous requests, I doubt there is a serious risk at this time of being de-sanctioned by the USOC.

I think this is strongly dependent on our continuing cooperating with them.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

More seriously, was it understood that the USOC would be making payments only based on its budget or was it understood beforehand that because they were taking over, they would be making substantial payments over and above their actual grants?

My understanding at the time was that, after or near the time the USOC rode in to the rescue right before Beijing, it became apparent to some in the USFA that the USOC was spending the next year's funding in advance...in essence setting the Association up for difficulty in 2009.

[heretic]

USOC money is supposed to be earmarked for elite fencers and Olympic preparation. The USOC was protecting its interests. The Anderson/Cotton/ Massik/Alperstein et al kakistocracy was using de-certification as a red herring issue to block the recall. The USFA will be paying the price for their actions for a very, very long time.

[oso97]

USOC money is supposed to be earmarked for elite fencers and Olympic preparation. The USOC was protecting its interests. The Anderson/Cotton/ Massik/Alperstein et al kakistocracy was using de-certification as a red herring issue to block the recall. The USFA will be paying the price for their actions for a very, very long time.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[pillow]

Hey, this is something new. We have the above three posters "on the same page." Maybe this is the start of a new, less confrontational relationship, although I doubt it.

[oiuyt]

This is probably a massively naive question, but why didn't the USFA take out structured loans to pay manage the issue instead of (effectively) borrowing it from the USOC, the venues, and the officials?

Secondary answer:

"Borrowing" from tournament officials comes without interest charges. If one looks only at direct financial costs it appears to be free.

-B

[Peach]

It is a hard lesson to learn, but when paying bills, it is important first to pay the bills of the people who can--and WILL-- really hurt you, not necessarily the people to whom you feel a moral obligation I had to take over the budget from my husband some years back when money was tight because he kept insisting on paying back his mother and the utilities, instead of the credit cards and the car payments. We got back on track fairly rapidly after I took over. Sad, and cynical of me, I know.

[Inquartata]

"'Cynic' is what an optimist calls a realist." - Sir Humphrey Appleby

[Philistine]

{snip}My impression from various people I've talked to (none of whom are Kurt) is that it was not expected that the USOC would spend more than we had been allocated. Or at least nowhere near that much.{snip}

My understanding at the time was that, after or near the time the USOC rode in to the rescue right before Beijing, it became apparent to some in the USFA that the USOC was spending the next year's funding in advance...in essence setting the Association up for difficulty in 2009.

There is something a little surreal about the USOC taking control of our finances because we were substantially spending over budget, and then the USOC substantially spending over budget.

Isn't the take-home for the USOC that they should increase the USFA's budget?

Yeah, yeah, April Fool's....

--Philistine

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Secondary answer:

"Borrowing" from tournament officials comes without interest charges. If one looks only at direct financial costs it appears to be free.

-B

SOUNDS like a line from a song

Choose your enemies carefully ‘cos they will define you
Make them interesting ‘cos in some ways they will mind you
They’re not there in the beginning but when your story ends
Gonna last with you longer than your friends

[KD5MDK]

There is something a little surreal about the USOC taking control of our finances because we were substantially spending over budget, and then the USOC substantially spending over budget.

Isn't the take-home for the USOC that they should increase the USFA's budget?

Yeah, yeah, April Fool's....

--Philistine

I think the USOC's takeaway is that recreational fencers need to pay higher fees to support the USOC goals.

[indypacers]

interesting, I've read a few responses and posted a few myself.

it seems that fencing like so many other Olympic sports with the same structure USTU (US Tae Kwon Do Union which is now USTA) have followed the same path of greed, mismanagement, lack of fiscal responsibility, political infighting etc.....

where the assumption that involvement in the sport equates to knowledge of how to handle the sport,,,,,,,which is why the state of the sport is as it is.

I use a business analogy where a guy has a great idea he starts a business, the business is making all kinds of sales yet he wonders why he isn't making any money? That seems to be the state of the association. I know there a few smart MBA fencing types that have studied a few business models and are itching to put a few plans in place. It might be worthwhile to consider, as it might be consider other view points "outside of the fencing viewpoint."

[KShan5[PrFC]]

This

nfighting etc.....

Not this

handle the sport,,,,,,,which is why the state of the sport is as it is.

You almost had it...then screwed it up again.

[silver2e]

There is something a little surreal about the USOC taking control of our finances because we were substantially spending over budget, and then the USOC substantially spending over budget.
...--Philistine

If the USOC "overspent" perhaps they were trying to catch up with some of the belated reimbursements that the USFA seemed to have lost sight of. During the year before the Olympics, many fencers took leaves from their jobs or worked part time. International travel for the Team was supposed to be reimbursed, but USFA was often 3-4 trips behind paying anything. The monthly stipends never arrived on time and often were months and months late. If fencers worry about paying rent and credit card bills (maxed out because of airline flights) because the USFA doesn't anteup, their heads can't be focused 100% on their fencing "job."

I wonder if we would have won 6 medals if the USOC had let the USFA continue to distribute the USOC funds for the Olympic teams. BTW, to their credit, the USFA is much better now--actually books the flights for the Sr Team and pays the housing.

Oh, yeah, excuse the rehash and the rant...