Saving Money by Reducing RO Compensation?

[RJH]

I would like to know, to the two guys so far that voted to reduce ro packages:

 

1 are you signed up for working Nationals next year?

 

2 when they offer you an RO package are you going to turn down part/all of it to help out the organizations bad finances?

 

3 have you ever worked a level 2 match?

 

4 have you ever worked a level 1 match?

 

5 are you an ro?

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, RJH said:

I would like to know, to the two guys so far that voted to reduce ro packages:

 

1 are you signed up for working Nationals next year?

 

2 when they offer you an RO package are you going to turn down part/all of it to help out the organizations bad finances?

 

3 have you ever worked a level 2 match?

 

4 have you ever worked a level 1 match?

 

5 are you an ro?

 

I didn't vote.

 

Why does one have to work nationals to have a say in what his membership dues and activity fees go towards? In fact considering what 30k members?? and only 1k go to nationals. And it's loosing money like crazy, all of us who don't go should be worried. We're paying for everyone to go, whether it's staff compensation packages or shooters with artificially low entry fee's. 

 

At $400 CO nats will likely still loose money. In fact a AD told me that himself. Assuming the match has 500 shooters again, that's 200 grand and still loosing money.

 

Something is probably going to have to give, and if the biggest expense is the staff it'll probably end up there. But with out a detailed accounting of what's going out where we're just speculating. Members should have access to that information. If I go to the treasurer of my local gun club and ask for details about the expenses of a match she'll have them. 

[858]

9 minutes ago, barry said:

Is the 3$ the organization gets per shooter the issue with all this uproar?

Seriously 3$ ?? Go back to video games you won't be missed.

 

That sort of response doesn't work when more that just nationals competitors vote and have a say in the direction of the organization. Change is coming and you need a better response when you're asked why non national shooting members should pay for nationals events. Your response is polarizing and may rally the average members against nationals. 

[RJH]

16 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I didn't vote.

 

Why does one have to work nationals to have a say in what his membership dues and activity fees go towards? In fact considering what 30k members?? and only 1k go to nationals. And it's loosing money like crazy, all of us who don't go should be worried. We're paying for everyone to go, whether it's staff compensation packages or shooters with artificially low entry fee's. 

 

At $400 CO nats will likely still loose money. In fact a AD told me that himself. Assuming the match has 500 shooters again, that's 200 grand and still loosing money.

 

Something is probably going to have to give, and if the biggest expense is the staff it'll probably end up there. But with out a detailed accounting of what's going out where we're just speculating. Members should have access to that information. If I go to the treasurer of my local gun club and ask for details about the expenses of a match she'll have them. 

 

If you haven't worked nationals, or even an level two, which maybe you have, you have no idea of what's going on at that sort of match. 

 

So expecting to give people less money to do a job that you don't want to do and have them show up is just not going to happen.

 

 

Yes Nationals is losing money, and a bunch of it, and things definitely need to change. That's why I brought up the fact that there are a lot of level 2 matches around the nation that can run 400 shooters and actually make money, and they do that while still comping staff.

 

 

I mean look at fishbreaths post earlier, he flew across country and worked Nationals and it still cost him $1,000 out of his own pocket. Are you willing to do that? I damn sure ain't. So I'm not going to try to short change the people that are going to actually show up and do the work

 

 

 

Now, if you're not going to Nationals and don't think it should be subsidized out of activity fees and membership dues, that's a legitimate question and argument. And I agree it shouldn't have to be subsidized, that all points back to all the successful level two matches around the nation.

 

So there's really a couple of different questions being asked and answered here, the ones that I asked were specific to the guys who voted about cutting ro compensation at a major match

[shred]

48 minutes ago, RJH said:

I think shreds idea of a giant Nationals with a thousand shooters doesn't sound horrible. 

Not only is it not horrible, it's been done before by USPSA and IPSC does it pretty much every year around the world.  World Shoots can pull 1200+ competitors.

 

Holding a National Championship is a core function of a National Organization.  If it doesn't break-even as-such that's not a huge deal as long as the national org stays in the black (which it is not, partly due to holding so many Nationals as I understand it)

 

[Schutzenmeister]

From the USPSA By Laws:

 

Quote

 

ARTICLE 3 - OBJECTS AND PURPOSES:

3.1 Consistent with the Certificate of Incorporation adopted to form this Corporation:

The nature of the business or purposes to be conducted or promoted is to solicit, receive and maintain a fund or funds, the principal and income of which shall be applied exclusively for charitable purposes, and in particular for the promotion of amateur national and international athletic contests principally in the area of practical firearms competition. As a means to this end, such purposes are to be carried out:

(a) By sponsoring national and international practical firearms contests;
(b) By establishing a system for the conduct of such competition;
(c) By establishing a program for the training of range officers and officials for the safe administration of the sport;
(d) By raising money to enable the Corporation to pay, in whole or in part, the expenses of such competitions including attendant publicity and travel expenses; and
(e) Either directly or indirectly, either alone or in conjunction with others, whether such others be persons or organizations of any nature, such as firms, trusts, associations, syndicates, institutions, agencies, corporations or governmental bureaus, departments or agencies, by doing all such things and acts, and engaging in such activities as are necessary, useful, suitable, desirable or proper to carry out the purposes set forth herein.

 

 

It seems to me that if we want to radically change how we go about the fiscal portions of the Nationals we may need to somewhat change the By Laws ...

[Zincwarrior]

47 minutes ago, RJH said:

I think shreds idea of a giant Nationals with a thousand shooters doesn't sound horrible. I've been discussing this stuff on other social media as well and I've heard several good ideas to reduce cost, no dumb ideas like docking the guys that are working.

The only immediate issue, is that the "Super" National has to be held in an area that supports hotels sufficient for that number of shooters. Some ranges are...remote. 

[shred]

4 minutes ago, Zincwarrior said:

The only immediate issue, is that the "Super" National has to be held in an area that supports hotels sufficient for that number of shooters. Some ranges are...remote. 

Tulsa, Frostproof (held a World Shoot there), St George, Columbus, Vegas, Daytona, etc... some of those ranges may be on the outs with USPSA at the moment, or need work but there's plenty of them.

 

[-JCN-]

How do people feel about making Nationals about just the best shooters and limit it to 50 per division?

 

Or is it something that should be available for people to experience at any performance level?

[shred]

6 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

How do people feel about making Nationals about just the best shooters and limit it to 50 per division?

 

Or is it something that should be available for people to experience at any performance level?

That doesn't help any with the cost unless you can cut many days out of the schedule.  There's no TV audience and no spectators so the only income source is participants.

[barry]

17 minutes ago, 858 said:

 

That sort of response doesn't work when more that just nationals competitors vote and have a say in the direction of the organization. Change is coming and you need a better response when you're asked why non national shooting members should pay for nationals events. Your response is polarizing and may rally the average members against nationals. 

Ya I thought about it and it was out of line. My apologies. 

 This whole thing of some people trying to tear uspsa down is starting to get to me.

[Racinready300ex]

 

3 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

How do people feel about making Nationals about just the best shooters and limit it to 50 per division?

 

Or is it something that should be available for people to experience at any performance level?

 

I don't think that really helps anything. And I don't know that we have a problem of not enough good shooters getting into nats.

 

IDPA has turned away prior national champions so they couldn't defend their titles. That seems silly. 

[barry]

3 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

How do people feel about making Nationals about just the best shooters and limit it to 50 per division?

 

Or is it something that should be available for people to experience at any performance level?

One of the best things about USPSA to me is unlike any other sport anyone can put thir money down and compete with the world's absolute best on an even playing feild.

[abbafandr]

I've worked as RO or CRO at a dozen or so national matches ( in addition to  a large number of level 2 and 3 matches.)

I've never come out ahead.  But I enjoy working them and the compensation does help defray the expenses some.  It is definitely not a vacation per se.

But without a detailed look at the organiztion's finances we're whistling in the dark for cutting expenses

[Racinready300ex]

Anyone have a break down of what the compensation is for nationals? We're really all just guessing at something that cost a good 75-100k per nationals. We could have a better discussion about a way forward if we know where we are now. 

 

[858]

24 minutes ago, shred said:

Not only is it not horrible, it's been done before by USPSA and IPSC does it pretty much every year around the world.  World Shoots can pull 1200+ competitors.

 

Holding a National Championship is a core function of a National Organization.  If it doesn't break-even as-such that's not a huge deal as long as the national org stays in the black (which it is not, partly due to holding so many Nationals as I understand it)

 

 

It's probably the most viable model. There is more value for vendors too. Having many national events dilutes the value of the events. 

[858]

18 minutes ago, shred said:

Tulsa, Frostproof (held a World Shoot there), St George, Columbus, Vegas, Daytona, etc... some of those ranges may be on the outs with USPSA at the moment, or need work but there's plenty of them.

 

Rio Salado too. 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, 858 said:

 

If a member doesn't shoot nationals, should they have to pay the subsidize portion of the event cost? 

thats a reasonable topic for discussion. imho, yes, but it doesn’t bother me if others want to jealously guard their $3.

 

i think even the whiners would probably be ok with it if there were other national programs that they felt provided value to them and their clubs, like a stage design library (which already exists) or more resources to help new clubs, or open/expand ranges.

[broadside72]

Make nats an actual national championship that you earn your way into.  Points from sectional and area matches get the top X shooters in each division invited (right of first refusal) and need to pay to shoot, at a single nationals event. Staff gets to shoot the match for free and maybe a per diem and maybe even lodging/travel allowance. 

 

When was the last time a full-time nats staffer actually won nats anyway? If you chose to "volunteer" to staff you get your pass to nats since you are "earning" the slot via working rather than being a good shooter and earning the points. 

The costs should go way down with that model, at least not losing money multiple times per year. 

[motosapiens]

10 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Anyone have a break down of what the compensation is for nationals? We're really all just guessing at something that cost a good 75-100k per nationals. We could have a better discussion about a way forward if we know where we are now. 

 

for ro’s? that information is freely available on the website.

 

free entry to staff match

shared hotel room during match

lunch at range

$25/day per diem

up to $375 travel cost with receipts 

 

it is sufficient right now to attract quality ROs, but obviously the majority of shooters find its not enough to make it worthwhile.

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, motosapiens said:

thats a reasonable topic for discussion. imho, yes, but it doesn’t bother me if others want to jealously guard their $3.

 

i think even the whiners would probably be ok with it if there were other national programs that they felt provided value to them and their clubs, like a stage design library (which already exists) or more resources to help new clubs, or open/expand ranges.

 

Is it just $3? Didn't dues just go up?

 

Maybe we should just allow members to donate to nationals instead of forcing them. Then those that want to guard their $3 can, and those that don't want to support Nationals with out going can do so. 

 

I don't think it's crazy to expect people to pay their own way. 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Is it just $3? Didn't dues just go up?

 

Maybe we should just allow members to donate to nationals instead of forcing them. Then those that want to guard their $3 can, and those that don't want to support Nationals with out going can do so. 

 

I don't think it's crazy to expect people to pay their own way. 

 

The $3 is a $1.50 activity fee at local matches and a $1.50 classifier fee at local matches. What went up was membership fees, it's 65 or so now

[RJH]

I think the $3 is pretty much a non-issue to most people, myself included.

 

I think the doubling of membership fees specifically to help cover Nationals is something that people are annoyed with.

 

If Nationals was a couple of Grand in the hole every year nobody would care or even notice, but the amount of money it bleeds now is nuts. Especially when there are proven ways of running big matches that can make money or at least break even

 

Some of that's a fact and some of that's my opinion, I'll let y'all sort out which is which LOL

[Racinready300ex]

3 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

The $3 is a $1.50 activity fee at local matches and a $1.50 classifier fee at local matches. What went up was membership fees, it's 65 or so now

 

That was my point, it's not really about $3. Some are just using $3 to make worrying about the org loosing money sound like you're being unreasonable. 

 

[-JCN-]

22 minutes ago, barry said:

One of the best things about USPSA to me is unlike any other sport anyone can put thir money down and compete with the world's absolute best on an even playing feild.

It’s not totally unique. SCCA nationals for autocross is the same way. But SCCA ProSolo Finale is an earned invitation from event performances. 
 

If it loses money, something has to give though.