BritinUSA
-
Posts
7,650 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by BritinUSA
-
-
FYI; The current burn rate assumes that the revenue for the next 2-3 years will be similar to the previous 2-3. But that is not likely unless something changes very soon. I understand that some clubs have not re-affiliated and the growth of Outlaw/HitFactor matches will further reduce income.
If the org is going to continue they need to address the ‘spending vs revenue’ ratio, they need to reconsider having so many Nationals that benefit only a tiny subset of the membership. They need to reconsider how Nationals is sponsored, it needs fewer prizes and more cash for the match itself.
Salaries of certain employees and AD expenses also need to be examined. I would also suggest a full review of past finances to ensure full legal/tax compliance.
-
Let’s not get side-tracked here; There are many issues within the sport that need to be addressed, the owners of this forum have no obligation to provide a place for those discussions.
USPSA used to have their own forum where people could discuss everything including elections and other non-shooting topics. That forum was shutdown around 2014 if I recall, it was right around the time of the USPSA President elections.
There are other places that could be used such as Reddit, Discord, or Gab.
Let’s not turn on each other, the people who run this forum and the members that participate here are NOT the problem, focus on the SOURCE of the problem.
-
Colorado has an extensive network of clubs that shoot USPSA. When the weather cooperates, a competitor could engage in 8-10 matches in any given month.
This letter was just sent out to clubs in the Eastern Colorado Section where I shot for 21 years.
QuoteTo all members of the Eastern Colorado USPSA section,
Last night, Thursday, 1/25/24, a majority of the ECO Club Presidents met to discuss the current state of USPSA and how recent events are affecting our section here on the Front Range. As some of you may or may not be aware of, for the past several years, there have been issues plaguing USPSA at the national level, specifically the Board of Directors (BoD). In general, those issues and allegations have not, and do not, affected us at our local matches. They do not affect how we operate as independent clubs to put on quality USPSA matches within our section. However, many of you are aware of these national BoD issues, which I will not detail here except to say that they are on the level of ethics and financial violations. The growing concern amongst membership across the country, within our Area and Section, has reached the point of concern that many of you have sent emails and messages to your club presidents, match directors, myself, and/or commented on social media or other platforms. The section club presidents and I felt that the most recent events that transpired at the national BoD level was enough to merit a meeting to discuss the situation as it pertains to our section and how we operate.
The Eastern Colorado USPSA Section is bound by by-laws that have been approved by the club presidents (past and present) and filed with our Area Director and USPSA. (They can be viewed on this page here: https://www.ecouspsa.com/sectioninfo ) These by-laws govern how we, as independent clubs, operate as a unified section to ensure consistent application of rules, dissemination of match information, safety program guidelines and adherence (including range officer classes), cooperation and support for Level II matches, and distribution of Nationals slots awarded to our section. These by-laws limit the liability to the section and to the clubs. While we, the club presidents, know that we are beholden to you, our section members, and are very cognizant of the requests that have been brought to us lately with regard to our section’s relationship with the national level of USPSA and calls for immediate action, we are analyzing all of our options, both as a section and as individual clubs. Our main goal is to continue to bring you all quality, safe matches while adhering to our by-laws and not incurring any additional liability. We will be meeting again in a few weeks to discuss further options, but please understand that while we cannot take any immediate action, know that we have heard you.
If you have any questions, please reach out to your club president, match director, or myself.
Thank you,
Eastern Colorado USPSA Club Presidents and Match Directors
-
19 minutes ago, pskys2 said:
My understanding is uspsa wont mail fs mags overseas. They still offer them here, unless you opt out.
Thank you for the clarification, it will be interesting to see how much difference that makes to the magazine’s financials.
-
I don't think it matters to the BOD what discipline people are shooting, what will cause them concern is the reduction in revenue. The costs of running the organization have not been addressed (to the best of my knowledge), so they are probably spending money at the same rate as last year.
Typically revenues don't start to pick up until the warmer weather starts, but I understand that Club Affiliations are down and some people may be letting their membership lapse due to negative perceptions of the org.
I think they stop printing the magazine as of this year, so there is a saving there but that may impact the advertising revenue, some companies prefer a hard-copy magazine, so it might be a zero sum game.
In the short term it depends who the BOD brings in as interim AD's and how much delay there is in running the elections. Remember when Foley was ousted the election was almost a year later.
The longer the other matches continue, the more established they will become. If the BOD waits too long to address the concerns it may find the sport has permanently abandoned them.
If that happens then the issue becomes, 'what do we do about international competitions and our place in IPSC ?'
-
I don’t think it’s a copyright issue. It would be if they were selling rulebooks though.
I understand why it is being done too. There is a lot of money in this sport and it’s being created by many hundreds of volunteers working thousands of hours.
Those volunteers - and the members that pay for matches and activity/classifier fees - are not getting much back from the organization and many feel they have no voice/control over what is going on.
If you haven’t watched the two most recent BOD meetings, I would suggest you take a look.
They are here on YouTube
-
While I’m glad that USPSA has chosen to (finally) live-stream the BOD meetings, it is probably counter-productive if they wish to encourage people to run for the position.
It was a tortuous experience to say the least. The endless and convoluted motions and the line-by-line reading of the rules amendments had me tearing my hair out…
This is probably what hell looks like, an interminable bored meeting.
-
Some are running matches under IPSC rule-book, apparently these don't require activity fees either.
-
48 minutes ago, Sarge said:
Maybe they are just soft primers
This. If your chrono data is accurate then there is no excessive pressure from your loads. Its just very thin metal on the primer cup.
-
I think USPSA still gets activity fees, as they are the regional directorate for IPSC. Check with HQ to be sure
-
49 minutes ago, ddc said:
Yes, USPSA was so wrong that the current CO definition has resulted in the most popular division by far and generated so much interest that it justified it's own standalone national championship. Yeah... bad move for sure.
To the extent that the growth has been to the detriment of all other divisions, yes, it was a mistake. It should have been Production Optics as it was originally intended to be.
FYI: Production also had a stand-alone Nationals.
-
1 minute ago, whan said:
It started as 10, to match production. Was too low to attract participation.
Participation was growing, the division was still provisional and had been running for just one full season when the changes were made.
I think IPSC introduced ProdOptics in 2018, taking effect as provisional in 2019. The division was formerly adopted in 2022, so they had nearly 3 full years of data to make the determination on its future.
IPSC’s ProdOptics has been a huge success with a very restricted rule-set and 15 round capacity. IPSC was right, USPSA was wrong.
-
I think it was 10 at the start, then it went to 140mm magazines.
-
2 minutes ago, ColoradoNick said:
The way things are going this seems to be a moot argument. I'm not sure USPSA is going to exist a year from now.
I think you may be right and its ok with me.
As long as we have a new IPSC affiliate for those few that seek to compete on the world stage.
If I had the finances I would set one up. I should buy a lottery ticket, I think it’s up to half a billion….
-
15. In IPSC Production-Optics is exactly the same as Production but with a dot.
CO is better as a round-restricted division, it increased the disparity between open and CO and invited more deliberation in stage planning.
The divisions should complement each other, offering clear distinctions to one another, each offering pros and cons. When you create a division that everyone wants, then every other division will eventually fail, leaving no choices to new shooters.
-
The muzzle end of the holster is probably canting in toward your leg so the gun is not completely vertical. This gets worse when the gun is loaded (heavier).
You may need to add an adjustment pad to keep the gun/holster completely vertical.
-
2 minutes ago, aandabooks said:
Now they need to roll CO back to 15 rounds.
I doubt that will happen. A better option would be to abolish CO, Limited-Optics is essentially the same thing anyway. Every CO gun is already LO compliant.
Then bring in Production-Optics using the IPSC definition.
-
1 hour ago, SV650Squid said:
I hope IPSC sees the shenanigans and decides to transfer the Region affiliation to an organization such as PCSL.
It would not be PCSL, a new directorate would have to comply with IPSC rules
-
4 hours ago, RJH said:
That 19862 is unique members. I'm thinking that may be something like lady, law enforcement, military, etc. I can't think of any other reason that they would be considered "unique" members
"Unique" in this context refers to a single count of individuals. The chart in question has counts for both Steel Challenge and USPSA matches.
It means that 19,862 individuals shot at least one SC and/or USPSA match that year, and over 17,000 did not shoot at all.
-
4 hours ago, RJH said:
In 2015 there was 23,800 members and in 2023 there are over 36,000 members so maybe these things have grown the sport
According to this report , 19862 members posted activity in 2022, so out of 37008 members only 54% actually shot a match.
I'm not sure why so many are joining a sport but not taking part in it…. its possible that many are foreign members who want a copy of the magazine and don't have access to USPSA matches.
14679 non-members recorded activity in that year, why do they NOT join ?
I think the org should figure this out.
-
So he's both an RO, and not an RO.... Schrödinger's RO ?
-
Yes, different rule-book. The rest of the world shoots IPSC.
-
3 hours ago, ysrracer said:
Where are the IPSC Nationals being held?
Sanford, Florida at the Extreme-GM range, there's a link to their facebook page above.
-
I did a quick search and couldn't find anything. The club ExtremeGM has a facebook page but I can't see much information on the match.
Hit factor matches vs USPSA matches
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
Further, I would suggest a restructure of USPSA. I think there should be two corporate entities; A COMPANY to manage the BUSINESS such as finances, contracts, taxes etc. and an ORGANIZATION that manages the SPORT.
Revenues would go to the COMPANY, which would set a budget that the ORGANIZATION must adhere to. The ORGANIZATION must be transparent and answerable to the membership.
Profits from the COMPANY would be disbursed via grants to L1 clubs to enhance their facilities, or to purchase equipment such as timers, tablets, steel etc.
Increases in affiliation, activity, classifier fees would be made by the COMPANY only if costs outstripped revenue. Fees would be reduced if there was still an excess of profits after all grants have been fulfilled.