Hoops

BOD is required to post 2023 financials. I believe the budget discussions in recent meeting is for 2024. During the last meeting I believe I heard the MD voice some concern with revenue drop in early 2024 and how to use early data for budget projection. This was also mentioned in A6’s recent podcast. Members will eventually see both 2024 budget and 2023 financials.

Was there any BOD discussion on 2023 financial results status?

Which state does Ken live in?

Is there a video of the second meeting? I thought it was yesterday.

Do you have a link for YouTube?

Agree. They should post minutes before the next BOD meeting. Otherwise continuity is lost between meetings.

https://uspsa.org/announcement/874

The HQ letter to member posted yesterday was not clear about posting minutes.

Are the live streamed meetings archived so members can access them? Not everyone can catch the real time streaming.

Yes. Google hotels Corpus Christie and you will see several to pick from.

To all: I believe that this topic may be reaching a conclusion. When I first started this, I wanted input on Limited Optics for SCSA. As expected, there has been expressions of opposition and support regarding adding LO’s to SCSA. The total number of posts is a small percentage compared to the number of views. This is typical of most topics in the Enos universe. The final decision should be put to the SCSA members by the BOD’s lead by @ZackJones who is presenting this for discussion at the next board meeting. The decision should not be by a few people or influenced by single individuals outside of the board. It’s the board’s responsibility. This is my opinion and I respect those who may not agree. Thanks for your posts. It’s been informative.

I made a mistake with the BOD comment. I REALLY would like us to avoid any more comments. if not, I’ll request the moderator’s to shut it down. any comment on LO is fair game. thanks for your cooperation Hoops

10 pages. A diary of thoughts

I think these are great ideas. Typically the BOD respond to member input. I’m particularly interested in your bullet points 1, 3 and 4. Would you share your thoughts on these? BTW, if the BOD could quit having elections and dealing with which AD is in or out, perhaps more member time would be available.

Input is always appreciated. I also shoot in A4 where there are several matches/shooters from USPSA and SCSA who want LO’s in SCSA and don’t want to shoot in Open. The genie was let out of the bottle when it was approved on probationary basis in USPA…..where LO has been growing fast. IMO, it would not be appropriate for it to be summarily shot down by a board of few. LO is on the next BOD agenda for discussion by @ZackJones, DSC. Ultimately all members should have a say. I suppose we will know in a few weeks. Thanks

Agenda posted USPSA website. LO for SCSA is listed. Thanks @ZackJones

This topic is approaching 15,000 views. I personally know from a close friend (USPSA GM) who has another social media platform that the interest in LO in SCSA is high. I’m glad that LO will be presented to the BOD. Hopefully the next BOD agenda will be posted soon.

And…..okay for centerfire (no magnum loads). SC limits PCCO to max 1,600 fps. Do not weld on the plates. Loose hanger caps with slotted plates…..you can use both sides of plates. We have been using slotted plates for years w/o the hook causing any bounce back. Shooting Targets 7. Good luck

BOD minutes not yet published. Any update on A4 vacancy?

I am pleased to announce that @ZackJones informed an A4 MD/GM friend of mine that Limited Optics for SC will be on the next BOD agenda. Thank you Zack. This it will be discussed by the board who ultimately will make the determination.

I can tune my SAO only Limited Optic gun much easier than CO gun. SAO triggers are exceptional. My magwell with bridged side skate tape locks my grip in tight. i believe a GM shooting both guns will have a proportionally better time with a proper LO gun. SAO is key. IMO

1. A36 is soft. 3/16”. It will pit and will dent….even by .22lr. I would not recommend it. 2. Shooting Targets 7 is an excellent company and products. They are selling 1/4” AR500 steel which is hard steel. The link is below. Will last for years. Good people. https://www.google.com/search?q=ShootingTargets7 LLC&ludocid=17186582256533709488&ibp=gwp;0,7&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4ncyEh5-EAxVVl2oFHfRLCpIQ_coHegQIMhAB&biw=414&bih=796&dpr=2

Zero chance of that. But, for those that volunteer to run and get voted in….they accept these basic principles and IMO should not accept broad budgets. not much to add

Again, the root of this post is simple: How are $$ being spent and where can $$ be saved. Just a few thoughts from a businessman and shooter: 1. Develop reasonable line-item budget for each national match…USPSA and SCSA. Question: For each major match, who owns and provides all the stands, walls, boundary sticks, steel, hangers..etc, etc? Are there shipping costs? Liability insurance? Range owner fees? All have to be considered and cost applied. 2. Establish shooter match fees for each national match based on budget. 3. P&L should be line item: Revenue/Expense. Footnote's/explaination for all variances over 5%. 4. Publish Budgets and final P/L statement to membership. Note: This should also be for every Operating and Admin cost. 5. If this process causes match consolidations then that is what should be necessary. I had a $75 million dollar per year company for 40 years. Multiple plants; domestic and overseas. I did this process every year, including a 5 year forward looking estimate every year. The key is discipline within the organization and an unwavering commitment.

As a current exclusive SC shooter, I rarely post on the USPSA shooter forum. But in this case there is some overlap. I voted No because RO’s are essential to all matches….from L1 and up. Most MD’s can’t operate their matches at a loss. Consumables (paint, paper, wood, etc) have significantly risen in cost. Setup crews are given a break on match fees. The result is most match fees have increased because of this. It should not be hard for HQ to set a reasonable budget for each national match they host….and show this budget as line items in each annual budget given to the members. In the P&L reports, expenses and revenue for each match should be shown. If there is a match cost overrun, a footnote explaination should be shown in the statement. If this basic principle was followed, there would have to be a corresponding match fee set for each major match. Since all cost overruns is membership money, the BOD’s has a fiduciary responsibility to manage membership money which is really at the root of this post….not the narrow focus of RO’s….IMO. Reports for FY2023 are due soon. It will be interesting after the significant loss in FY2022.