davidwiz Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Maybe you can't have as many RO's or maybe you don't give them so much, or cut back on prizes if they are paying for them. If you capped it at 300 maybe you wouldn't need as many RO's or you could cut a day or two off. I'm not saying I have the answers, I don't, I just think if they had a limited number of shooters that they were pretty much guaranteed to get, it would make things easier. Um, the ROs weren't "given" anything. They all volunteered to take a week off to be there. USPSA was gracious enough to provide for our lodging and give us a travel stipend. As for reducing the # of ROs, the match would have been much longer (both in terms of time during the day and # of days). Weren't you complaining that the match was too long? Yet you're proposing something that would make the match longer. I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdragon Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Yea it is pretty hot here in july/august, BUT its a dry heat! Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 David, Back off there bucko. If you would have read my post you may have noticed I said I didn't have the answers, I'm just throwing out suggestions. I do consider room, board and travel expenses giving the RO's something. I'm not judging it one way or the other. But RO's are the biggest expence at a match. Yeah they volunteered to be there just like the shooters did and the shooters paid to do it. I absolutely appreciate all the RO's and staff for volunteering, we couldn't have a match without them, just like we couldn't have a match without the shooters. I consider shooters and RO's the same, I haven't experienced the "us vs. them" attitude I've heard about. Most of us do both or have done both. This is a volunteer sport, that's what it takes to keep the sport moving. My point was; as I understand it, the nationals has lost money the past few years. I don't know if they did this year or not. Hell, they may even budget the year to run red at the Nationals, I don't know. I'm not trying to start a political thing like the old USPSA forum. I was just throwing out ideas to not lose money. If you know exactly how much you have coming in then you know exactly how much you can spend without losing. If you don't want to lose, then you can only spend so much. Something has to give; if the match is shorter then you have less RO expense. Or you don't buy prizes (if they even do) OR you don't give the RO's as much. Just some ideas, that's all. Yeah, I did think the match was a little long. I'd rather not spend 9 days away. But I also thought it was an awesome match. It was my first nationals and as long as I can afford the time and money I won't miss another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Smitty, I'm not sure that limiting the income (# of shooters) is the answer? Why limit the top end? We would want to limit the spending, right? Or, more to the point... Maximize income, while minizing expenses. Or, even more exact...maximize the difference between expenses and income (profit), while still putting on an effective Nationals. Of course, being a non-profit outfit, making the most money possible on the Nationals might not be the goal we want to pursue (of course, the organization must do well enough to stay viable). (lol...did I muddy the waters?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Just a comment...which will prob upset some people.... Why pay RO's? Many places lets them shoot the pre-match for free, maybe give a little for travelling expenses, limited refreshments and sometimes lunch...but mostly they are volunteers and pay for most just like the other shooters. The RO's that are in it for the money get weeded out fast and you end with the dedicated RO's at the big matches. Own shirt, etc... And I'll bet more RO's volunteer every time than are required.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Here's a thought. Anyone who thinks that ROs are being spoilt or overly compensated for their efforts, is more than welcome to volunteer for the same lavish benefits. In respect of the US Nationals, please submit your names to Mr. John Amidon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Ok, after a re-read that came out wrong...I have just experienced that some RO's only RO for the financial benefit. The moment the benefit wasn't that great anymore they became regular shooters (mostly of the complaining kind ) and the dedicated guys remained. By all means compensate for expenses and give incentives, but do not pay a salary/fee/call it what you may... Sorry for those I might have offended. Me, so far I RO for free and pay the match fees, food, refreshments- the sport needs the money and I am not worse off. Would have gone and shot in any case. The "so far" part - because I haven't been to match that pays and even if I went there I most probably will still do it as above...but thats just me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ong45 Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Just curious, when have R.O.'s been compensated other than expenses? how much? James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Flex, Good point. I heard they were expecting 600+ at this years Nationals. I think they ended up getting 500+. But they had to be prepared with time and RO's to handle 600 or more and not really knowing how many they would have until the last couple weeks I would imagine. What I'm saying is if they limited it to a number that they were pretty much sure to get it would be easier to budget. Using David's info for example, the RO's cost 60K if you had 400 shooters at $250 that would be 100K. So if you want to do what they did for the RO's then you have 40K left to spend on the match without losing money. As opposed to "thinking" you might have 600 shooters which would be 150K, spending it, then only getting 500 shooters. Like I said before, it was a great match, I don't know for sure they lost money this year or any other year, just what I've heard. They may even plan on it, if it works for them it works for me. My point is if you wanted to run the match in the black, you need a hard budget to do it. And you can't have a hard budget and be prepared for 100 more shooters than you get at the same time while keeping the entry reasonable. The only reason I brought it up is a buddy and I were talking about it the other day. I'm putting on a match for the first time at the end of this month. When I started planning it I didn't know if anybody would show up. I can't afford to run in the red (it would be my money) so I had to budget pretty tight. If I wanted to do two days and pay the RO's hotels then I need x number of shooters at x price to break even. If I wanted to do prizes the x's were different. If I wanted to build new props they were different. So I ended up figuring a number I thought I was sure to get and budgeted the match from there. Yeah it limited the top number of shooters I could take, but it ensured I wouldn't lose money. No biggie, just some thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tri Burst Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 How about range fees, prop cost, targets, pasters, score sheets, match book, pins, name tags, hotel hall and awards hall rental and lets NOT forget about the STAT shack and the personel along with the equipment/supplies needed to score the match and post results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The RO's at major matches like Nationals aren't "paid" to be there. They get a small travel allowance to defer some of the cost of getting there. For the majority of the RO's which come from out of the area this doesn't come close to covering the cost of the flight and rental car. The get their meals paid for and they get the hotel paid for as long as they stay with another RO. If they want to bring a wife they get to pay part of their room. At the end of some of the matches there is an RO prize table. I can't speak to the 2004 Pistol Nationals though. I know we did this at the 2003 Open and Limited and the 3-Gun this year. Many vendors specify this as a requirment to them even donating. The RO prize table in not anywhere near as generous as the shooter table. So for all these wonderful benefits RO's get to take even more time off work. They arrive before the shooters, help set up or decorate their stages, listen to shooters bitch about their calls ("it's a double, that's on the line"), work the full day, every day and after the match they get to look on the internet and have more people complain about them being greedy and only in it for the money for the next 3 months. As far as them shooting the match, their scores aren't included in the overalls, normally because they don't get to shoot all the stages. Did you want to shoot this years Nationals, all the stages in 2 days? I have no interest in being an RO at a major match. I did it for the 2003 Area 1 and that is the last time for a long while. But, I'm not going to begrudge RO's the paltry amount that they get "paid" to come and work for the better part of 2 weeks at a National match. Chuck Anderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Smitty, if it matters, this match was very nearly sold out to the 600 shooter limit. The week before the match there were over 560 registered shooters. The reason we only ended up with 500 or so didn't have anything to do with the match. 60 shooters backed out at the last minute due to hurricane related weather. It's very difficult to estimate match attendance at one of these things. For the 2003 there were over 600 people on the waiting list for slots. Obviously, not everyone took their slots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 How about range fees, prop cost, targets, pasters, score sheets, match book, pins, name tags, hotel hall and awards hall rental and lets NOT forget about the STAT shack and the personel along with the equipment/supplies needed to score the match and post results. Do you really think that amounts to more than $60,000??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 What you do is plan to handle a greater number than you budget your expenses from. Say you can handle 720 shooter, 24 stages with 15 per squad. you build your budget around say 450 shooters. OK, you have either smaller squads or a few extra open time slots. You still need the same number of RO's, the same rental hall for prizes and the same stats and all the rest. THis way everyone over the budget amount is gravy. Those of you with a small business may recognize the "Nut" Whether one customer buys or not, there is a baseline cost. You have a "Breakeven point" that you need to hit every month to cover your expenses. while overhead costs may still rise for every additional sale/customer/shooter, the base is covered and only a small portion need be allocated towards OH, ONCE THE NUT IS MADE. It is at the point that you pass your minimum number of shooters required to break even that you beging to expand the prize table and add in other amenities. Having one large match is probably a more cost effective way of running things. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestock Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The biggest cost in putting on a major match is RO expenses. This is the price of getting qualified and experienced RO's to help make the match run properly. What club has enough certified and experience RO's to put a match on? None. You have to import the talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Good points made by all. (And, a special thanks to all the RO's that work the big matches!) Smitty, I think where you are driving at is the difference between fixed and variable expenses. In your model, a variable would be the expense of extra days for RO's, right? So, you are presenting a senario that would limit the shooters...therefore cutting day(s) off the match? That could make sense. Of course, each extra day for RO's would be a known expense. And, that could be measured against the extra income of adding more shooters (meaning, do we get enough in match fees to cover the extra day of RO expenses). Some of this is logistics too. Since we would have all the assets in place already, expanding a day or two might be a good move. With the 5 day shooting format (like we just had)...the weekends are used for travel. That is 5 days off work for most. If we shorten the shooting days down a couple...will that make a big difference? (in vaction time and such) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The RO's at major matches like Nationals aren't "paid" to be there. They get a small travel allowance to defer some of the cost of getting there. <snip> Chuck, thanks for a great post. If we take this to the highest level, namely a World Shoot, IROA ROs get a US$500 travel susbsidy, a US$20 "per diem" (a daily rate for food), and twin share hotel accommodation. However many, if not most, of the ROs spend at least US$1,500 in travel expenses, they often spend +24 hours getting from door to door and, if they're lucky, they might get a chance to shoot a 5 day match in 2 days, but this also requires them to RO each other. Moreover, although a typical World Shoot runs from Monday to Friday, the ROs must arrive no later than the previous Thursday, so that they can run the pre-match for sponsors, RDs and themselves. Of course the RO's are invariably the first to arrive at the range, and they're invariably the last to leave, and they don't get to sit down in the shade waiting for their turn, because every competitor on the line is their turn (to work)! I don't think any RO wants his ass kissed, but I'm damn sure none of them would appreciate a suggestion that being an RO is an easy way to make a quick buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Okay, I only skimmed this thread, but...... [soap box] Ten days in Barry/Quincy... Early to the range...late to dinner (cocktails, or whatever...)... Stuffing hundreds of competitor bags in prep for the match.... Helping set up tables, etc for the banquet.... Rebuilding blown down stages before breakfast.... All this for a couple of Quincy bucks, a range lunch and a room.... PRECIOUS.............. [/soap box] I know that the match staff is generally appreciated, but...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Good points Chuck and Jim.......yeah you too Vince. Well now that I've hijacked the hell out of this thread. I never suggested ROing was an easy way to make a buck. I'm quite certain they don't come out ahead. I was just using the RO's as ONE example of the expenses of a match. They happen to be the biggest expense. Whether they are a variable or fixed expense is up to someone else to determine. I don't know if they have to beg folks or if they have to turn folks away to RO. Either way, it doesn't matter. Let me see if I can illustrate my point one more time. If it still doesn't make sense I give up. I've had a couple beers so if my math doesn't work just laugh at me. Using Jim's numbers of what they were prepared to handle, 720 shooters. That is 144 shooters a day for a 5 day match. If you wanted to do a three day match using those numbers you could have 432 shooters. So set the cap at 400. Using David's dollar figures that would save about $30K just in RO costs. I imagine it would save some somewhere else also. Also would have prevented 70ish shooters from participating this year. The point is you wouldn't have to be prepared for a number you might not hit. Rather you would be almost certain to hit your projected income and can budget accordingly. If you don't want to lose money, you can only afford what you can afford. Whether the RO's get less, or awards are less, or you have the awards in the parking lot, or you up the entry, or whatever. I didn't start this to say not to cover the RO's or not to have prizes or not to have ketchup packets or anything. I think the match was great as I said before. It was just an idea on budgeting. IF the match is losing money AND they don't want to lose money........That's all. I'm out of this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 I'm following with you Smitty. Using the numbers from your math (I'll assume you didn't drink too much)... We might save the $30,000 by capping at 400 shooters. We actually had 536 shooters (from what Dave Thosmas told me at the match). So, those 136 shooters that could have got turned away...136 x $250 = $34,000. I'm sure there are some smaller variable expense that could be figured in there (extra pasters, targets, paint, dumping the port-a-potties, trash, ect). And, if they actually signed up 600. Those that canx...they forfeited their deposit (that is about $3200, I think). I think I'd rather not turn anybody away. Interesting discussion. (I still don't know where the Nationals will be next year though. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Smitty, the number of shooters you can handle at a match is the number of stages x the number of people on the largest squad that will fit in the clearence time alotted. Assuming 15 shooters @ 4 minutes, plus a 10 minute travel and we run all single stage runs (unlike this year's Nats where we had a couple 2 or three stage to a time slot situations. These should be treated as if they are one stage for the purposes of calculation and in truth were so treated) add in one hour for lunch, we get 10 hours and 20 minutes for the day. That is 8 runs a day, so, you can do a couple things here, you can run a three day 24 stage match where everyone shoots or is on the range for the entire time and you get 360 maximum shooters, you also have no leeway should anything go wrong. Or you do what was done at the nats, you build in a bit of breathing room, everyone shoots 1/2 day or 4 stages a day, we got 20 actual pits (as stated, a couple were double or triple stages) that yields an real count of 600 available slots. This means that the 2004 nats ran at about 90% capacity. Consdering the hurricanes and a few other distrations, that is damed good. As to budgeting, you want to plan on say 70% capacity. perhaps a budget based upon 420 or so. If you can meet the EXPENSES at that level, all the additional income with the exception of specifics such as shirts, programs and any other per shooter expenses such as a per shooter Range Fee go towards additional prizes and the bottom line. Your RO expenses and most all of your venue expenses are the same regardless of the number of shooters that show, You have to staff all the stages! You should never really announce a cap. Too many people will assume that the match is either full or that if the cap is too low, that hte match isn't worth their time t travel to it. THere was a match this year that capped at I think 60 slots, they could easily have run 80 or more people, they barely got intothe 40's, to many people thsough that it wouldn't be worth the trip. Turned out to be one of the best matches I shot and I hope to get in next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Fair enough. Say, anybody know where and what format the nationals is going to be next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ong45 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Heard from a couple of people, back to back. Factory then limited-open. IN JULY aaaurgh. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I'd opt to repeat the same format as this year. I've shot 5 Nationals, Limited, 2x, FG 2x and the All-In-One this year. By far this was the best. We go to see how every division faired on the same exact courses, under as near as possible the same exact conditions. The logistics favor this method. If we run back to back we'd shoot what? Mon, Tues, 1/2 Wed (AM), then Thurs, Fri, 1/2 Sat (AM) I need to take off Friday before and Thursday and maybe Friday after to make the trip. What did I save? a Saturday and Sunday? I am better off shooting Mon-Fri and traveling on the weekends. Only costs one week of vacation. The other way its a week and a day! And I am beat up at the end. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 If we run back to back we'd shoot what? Mon, Tues, 1/2 Wed (AM), then Thurs, Fri, 1/2 Sat (AM) I need to take off Friday before and Thursday and maybe Friday after to make the trip. why would you need to take friday off to start shooting a match on monday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now