Worldshoot in the US?

[JFD]

I don't see CB saying anything except that it is possible that holding a WS in the US would not be in the best interest of 90+%(more like 98% I think) of USPSA members.

Spending a fortune for a handful of members to shoot a match is bad business and poor management if that is the end result.

If we were to get actual positive news coverage that could draw new members, then this could be called a marketing effort. Since that is highly doubtful, except maybe locally, a WS would be a big loser financially for USPSA IMHO.

Charles is quite correct to point out the basic facts concerning the WS. That's called doing his job and being responsible.

I personally have no interest in USPSA spending a bunch of money so that 2% or less of the membership can have a fun time. Of course a "bunch of money" would have to be defined, and any possible benefits to USPSA could make a difference, but I can't see what those benefits would be. I find it hard to believe that WS hosts outside the US aren't getting money from outside sources, when we'd have to pay for it within the membership.

A lot of information is needed by the membership before anyone in USPSA should think about hosting a World Shoot.

[kimel]

One possibility, which if memory serves has been done before, is to hold a pre-match or post-match. The majority of interested US shooters might not be able to shoot World Shoot but they can shoot the same stages. Everything is already set up and ready to go. Just staff it and shoot it.

With that many stages the pre/post-match should be able to handle just about as many shooters as were interested. Of course those shooting the actual World Shoot shouldn't get to shoot the pre/post-match as that would be somewhat unfair.

[EricW]

JFD,

What I'm saying is that there is an erroneous assumption that a WS in the US is a money losing proposition. They're making money hand over fist doing big shoots in Europe, the land of the 20% VAT and $5+/gallon gas.

Clearly we're doing something wrong here if we can't run a match as financially solvent as the socialists.

E

[Chuck Anderson]

The WS brings in about 400K in entry fees and additionally all the sponsors give cash as opposed to prizes. I'm guessing at least another 100K roughly. You can put alot of match on for a half million dollars without USPSA having to kick any in. I'm surprised that the host region has to give any money at all. I wouldn't expect that smaller regions like Ecuador, Bali and South Africa would have a huge surplus of money sitting around.

[Flexmoney]

I'd certainly like to here more details on the finacials before I put forth any opinion.

CB, where can that info be found?

[JMD]

I'd certainly like to here more details on the finacials before I put forth any opinion.

CB, where can that info be found?

Flex, et al...

I will not make any "expert" claims but know many of the principals involved in several of the recent L IV

and L V matches. The "inside gossip" is also reasonably accurate and if you spend the time for a little forensic

accounting. The only way we secure the match is to bid for it and the last "Major IPSC" match we did was

a L IV. I think the last WS in the USA was in Orlando in 1986.

The primary reason you see "second or third world nations" hosting these matches is that, first they apply

and second the costs of production are far less than countries with labor/union laws and a higher cost of

living. One truth is that most of the participants at the WS are able to afford the costs and time. I have heard

for years the desire of many to have the match in the USA. Even with a high entrance fee, which would prompt

many complaints from US shooters, if there were slots -- they would take them.

*We also need Homeland Security, ATF, TSA, ICE and XYZ to be on board!

The single greatest expense is the IROA budget. Remember this is a sanctioned IPSC match and we would

follow IPSC guidelines, rules, practices, etc. At today's rate of reimbursement (which has not changed in many,

many years) officials receive a $500 travel allowance, a per diem, breakfast and lunch. There is recognition

dinner and a modest gift. Naturally the hotel and transport to/from the airport and match are covered. The match

RM is approved by IPSC and they select the IROA officials who will staff the match. Our NROI would provide

additional staff.

Instead of "drafting" local soldiers to handle stage reset we would have to be a little more creative which is an

additional expense -- however we get volunteer 4-H, Future Police, Boy scouts, Girl scouts, etc.

A quick computation; 36 stages (+ chrono or including), a single sharp CRO could manage 2 short courses but

you would have extra NROI, the management model has "Area CROs" for groups of 6 or 8 stages along with

the RM and Asst. IROA does not, to my knowledge get into the finances of NROI, but say 45 IROA which includes

Stats, Quartermaster, etc. $22,500 travel money. 10 days hotel at 2 per room (23) at $50. per night = $ 11,500

and a $20 (miserly) per diem = $9,000 which comes to $43,000 without a dinner and nominal gift. Round up with

transport to $50K + (G.O.K. @ 10%) NROI only receive $300 travel but still need housing, food and drink.

The latest squad model, which beats up your staff, but allows for high volume, is morning and afternoon shifts along

with the pre-match. The EHC has slots for 900 shooters in the main match. If we have 36 stages and a round count

of +/- 600 rounds we can charge between $4-500. Gross (some pre-match would pay also) $360 - $450,000.

NROI 36 @ -$200 = $10,800 + 20,500 = $31.300. RO staff +/- $85,000.

EXPENSES will include the IPSC president and a free slot to the World Champ(s?). A group of IROA will arrive early

for setup. Props, apparatus, high cool factor things like new props or ???

Opening and closing ceremonies. There have been Air Force flybys, dance troops, speeches, there must be some

cheerleader teams in Tulsa... then reception following. The RD (our President) would host a dinner for RDs. The

question of whether to pay for BOD... negotiating range use and improvements, etc. EXPENSES.

Transportation EXPENSES, buses from hotels.

There is no prize table. Not that "prizes" could not be raffled (for charity perhaps?) or given away.

There is an awards ceremony that tends to be formal with nice awards, medals, food and drink. EXPENSE

Merchandising rights. There is serious money to be made here. Either license it or keep it in-house. REVENUE

Sponsors. Get them there, charge cash but be prepared to deal. Raffles and goodies in the shooters bag. REVENUE.

On the range. Sell sports drinks, snacks, ice cream, etc. Free water on stages is gracious and minimal cost. REVENUE.

Range food. Remember there are many dietary restrictions. Variety, quality, speed, quality. REVENUE.

REVENUE. We have a captive market. While we can rent wagons and golf carts and limit personal vehicles, charging

a reasonable price for value builds positive memories and positive relations and publicity are of inestimable value.

PROFITS. Whatever the range fee, the promotion costs and "miscellaneous" costs, one would have to work really hard

to take a loss.

***Again, the only caveat is that Homeland Security, ATF and TSA all be on the same page and, if not enthusiastic, not

cause any problems.

I'm sure to have forgotten many line items. The good news is we have the ability to provide ammunition. We also have

members with great experience producing matches.

This info gives you a starting point. I would suggest a small team with a competent leader working independently and reporting to the RD/BOD rather than throwing this open to a large committee. One might even ask for volunteers!

Joel

[Charles Bond]

Joel:

Thanks for your post which is a great starting point to look at the larger financial picture. Your committee suggestion is a sound one.

I want to make it very clear here that at this time I do not have a position one way or another as whether USPSA should bid for the WS. My earlier post was a short and sweet version of comments I have received in the past. As Joel's post sets forth, there is a question of how feasible a WS would be here and it would require some study.

Before we cross that threshold however, I would like some general sense from the members of Area 6 as to whether they believe that if a WS was feasible that it would be something that would be worth the effort. Money is an issue but effort is another. I have received one email today that suggests that it would be bettter for USPSA to focus our efforts on matters that would be of more benefit to more members even assuming that the WS would break even.

Please email me with your thoughts at Area6@uspsa.org.

Charles Bond

[kimel]

Excellent summary Joel. Thanks for the thought and time it took to make that very informative post.

Seems to me it might be a good idea to see how the elections work out before we get too carried away. Then if the new President and the post-election BoD make-up are in favor then we can pursue it.

Go ahead and let your AD know your thoughts but if you are in an area with a contested BoD position you might want to cc all the candidates in case one of them is the BoD representing your area.

[EricW]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Also, I could be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't micromanage relish dispensing at the hotdog stand at the Atlanta Speedway. Let the host entity handle it. If they want to incorporate those profits into making a more attractive bid to USPSA, that's their perogative.

Finally, I'm totally at a loss as to the hypothesis that ATF / Homeland Security / TSA being the monkey wrench in the works. We've had the system for foreign competitors attending US matches worked out for quite a while now. I know the paperwork is a PITA, but it's not like Big Gubmint is showing up at matches and dragging off the furriners in paddy wagons. If it's happening, it's totally astounding to me that it's not being mentioned here. There is no shortage of foreign competitors attending US matches and travelling here with their firearms.

My point is this: A World Shoot doesn't have to be a logistical nightmare for a handful of volunteers. The money is there. Let professionals handle it, *manage* the work (as opposed to doing it), and be done with it.

My 200 centavos...

[Charles Bond]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Do you have any suggestions as to who this private enterprise entity might be? If they are out there we could let them try their hand with a putting on a nationals and achieve the same goals.

Charles Bond

[Nik Habicht]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Do you have any suggestions as to who this private enterprise entity might be? If they are out there we could let them try their hand with a putting on a nationals and achieve the same goals.

Charles Bond

Sure, although I have no idea if they'd be interested: USSA comes to mind.....

....come to think of it, so does Frank Garcia --- although I have no idea in addition to interest, whether Frostproof is large enough/could be expanded to be large enough.....

[Tengu]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Do you have any suggestions as to who this private enterprise entity might be? If they are out there we could let them try their hand with a putting on a nationals and achieve the same goals.

Charles Bond

Sure, although I have no idea if they'd be interested: USSA comes to mind.....

....come to think of it, so does Frank Garcia --- although I have no idea in addition to interest, whether Frostproof is large enough/could be expanded to be large enough.....

I think the idea of a private entity hosting a WS is an excellent idea, and could help avoid controversy within USPSA. USSA is already a good part of the way through hosting their second nationals, and from what I saw of their as-yet-uncompleted facility last year, they should certainly have the space to accommodate a world shoot if they were interested. Universal Shooting Academy is another possibility, and already brings in large numbers of international shooters every year for the Florida Open, although it's true the facility there would have to be expanded. Barry or Las Vegas might work as well... IMHO, bringing the WS here would be a great idea- it has been a long time since the most shooter-friendly nation in the world hosted it, and it would give USPSA members a chance to attend without making an expensive and possibly dangerous (Bali???) trip overseas.

[EricW]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Do you have any suggestions as to who this private enterprise entity might be? If they are out there we could let them try their hand with a putting on a nationals and achieve the same goals.

Charles Bond

USSA is the first one that comes to mind. The only thing that will hold Tulsa back for international matches is the absence of world-class tourist destinations in the immediate vicinity.

I think there is another group in Oregon that had exactly the same game plan, but I don't know what the current status is.

Frank Garcia's range also comes to mind, but I don't know what his capacity is.

Volunteerism is the foundation of the sport. It also has its limits and it appears that we have hit them. USPSA does not seem to be able to support more than a 350 person match via all volunteers. It's time to turn the monster matches over to the pros, let them deal with the logistics and for USPSA to administrate and receive a guaranteed fee off the gross receipts. USPSA has guaranteed income. Shooters pay for and get a spectacular match. And the host entity makes money. Win-win-win for all parties. No subsidies required.

[Chuck Anderson]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Do you have any suggestions as to who this private enterprise entity might be? If they are out there we could let them try their hand with a putting on a nationals and achieve the same goals.

Charles Bond

You mean like a private entity hosting two pistol nationals in 2006 and 2007 and a Multi Gun Nationals in a couple weeks. I think that would be USSA and they have done a great job, even with this years horrible weather for the last several months. By 2011 this place is gonna rock.

[Tengu]

Or...USPSA could let private enterprise handle the match and simply receive a percentage of the match fees in return for allowing the host range/entity to manage the event. With a half million bucks on the table, somebody else could work out the details and USPSA could limit its activities to a supervisory capacity. Host entities could bid on the match based on % returned with USPSA having the ability to reject bids based whether or not they felt the host capable of actually pulling off the match successfully. i.e. USPSA might elect to go with the third lowest bidder because of logistics or competency concerns.

Do you have any suggestions as to who this private enterprise entity might be? If they are out there we could let them try their hand with a putting on a nationals and achieve the same goals.

Charles Bond

You mean like a private entity hosting two pistol nationals in 2006 and 2007 and a Multi Gun Nationals in a couple weeks. I think that would be USSA and they have done a great job, even with this years horrible weather for the last several months. By 2011 this place is gonna rock.

I agree that USSA would be the place to do it if they are willing. It's an awesome facility with awesome staff. Tulsa may be a little out of the way for tourist attractions, but the match quality is the main consideration

[Flexmoney]

Eric,

I'm not sure that I am following you. The model you suggest, isn't that already in place?

Our USPSA Nationals are the only matches that I believe (?) that USPSA gets directly involved in with regards to the actual production of the match. Even then, a lot of that is hands-off.

The Match Director is the cheese with regards to putting on any match at any level, I believe. With our Nationals, that match is run by the Prez (or, his/her delegate). So, that puts USPSA in direct involvement. The Match Director is ultimately responsible for picking the stage, picking the staff, setting the schedule, etc. The Range Master(s) do pick up a lot of that work...and good thing too, as I don't know that the logistic would come together without the group effort.

What am I missing?

[Flexmoney]

JMD, I agree with Eric. I don't see an issue getting into the USA for a match. Then again, I know that is always a fear with USPSA shooters going abroad. We get visitors from outside our country for USPSA matches already. Do you have a fear that certain countries might not be as well recieved as others?

Oh...and $500 ?!?!

ouch.

(and, thanks for the info)

[EricW]

Eric,

I'm not sure that I am following you. The model you suggest, isn't that already in place?

Hi Flex,

My point is that they don't *have* to be money pits, which seems to be the defacto assumption: that USPSA will subsidize the match because the fees and sponsorship dollars won't support it.

What I propose is this:

- Do away with the slot system if possible (prob. not possible with the WS). Let the *host* determine the # of shooters they can support.

- Put the matches up for bid. The bid consists of:

1) Guaranteed minimum income to USPSA in exchange for allowing the host to run the match.

2) A % of the match fees above the minimum for entries in excess of that min. #

3) The host gets to keep all the profits above their costs and fees to USPSA That means if they generate $250K in profit, they pocket it.

USPSA would then *make* money no matter what.

The host range would then promote the hell out of the match to make sure that they had sufficient entries to both pay USPSA and pay their costs AND make money at the end of the day. With World Shoot level of bucks on the table, that is entirely possible. The host range would also be responsible for putting on a quality match if they wanted to qualify as a match host in the coming season.

Anyway, private enterprise seems to be a lot better solution than the current caterwauling over match subsidies. But I am often in err, but never wrong. FWIW...

Edited to add:

The point that I've alluded to, but not stated outright is that these events have fixed costs and variable costs. The fixed costs are what you're going to incur, no matter what to put on the event. The variable costs are what you incur each day of the production (tape, targets, hotel fees, etc.) I don't know what the breakdown between the two is for a World Shoot, but the point is that there is a breakover point at which the # of entries covers your fixed and variable costs. After that, you only need to cover your variable costs because the fixed costs are done and paid for. So, by increasing the # of entries, you dramatically increase the financial viability of the match.

USPSA has a lot of history that apparently shows that 250 to 350 competitor matches are financial sinkholes. IPSC has a lot of history that shows that 1000 competitor matches are cash cows. I just read about the World FITASC Championships. Guess how many shooters? About 1K. And no whining about the match going in the tank financially.

There's a moral in here somewhere....

Edited September 11, 2007 by EricW

[Flexmoney]

I don't know (nor believe) that 300 shooter matches are sink holes. So, that might be a point to further investigate.

What may be the area of 'sink hole'ness' is the practice of housing the staff and paying their travel(for the preferred nationals staff) . That, along with the practice of putting money into the prize table.

I really can't speak to how they run the nationals. I do know that I could run a similar match and make some $$ out of it.

[uscbigdawg]

Eric's idea of a private entity coordinating the match is probably the best bet. As we've seen, USPSA doesn't do the best job with making money at our own Nationals, and something larger would probably bring more pork to the table.

That said, as someone who used to work for THE largest sports, venue and event architecture firm in the world, and compiled bids for San Francisco and New York to host the Olympics, I can tell you that there are more than a few companies that could handle this task quite easily.

The logistics of a match on this scale, is not difficult, just maybe difficult for our staffs as they've never done it before. Put such a task in the hands of those that have planned opening day ceremonies, Super Bowls and Olympics and this will be quite easy.

In the end, there's no good reason why the US hasn't hosted a WS in over 20 years. As IPSC's largest body I think it's frankly an insult. Perhaps we would have more practice at large scale events if we had a single Nationals and/or larger events like a North American championships or host a Pan-Am but hey, that's just me idiot member throwing ideas for those in a position of power.

Rich

ETA: The only cryin' that I can see from the membership is the lack of classes in IPSC (THANK GOODNESS!). Heads up shootin' is the best anyways.

Edited September 11, 2007 by uscbigdawg

[Barrettone]

Tom Fee (owner of USSA) has made it abundantly clear in the past that the overall objective is for USSA to be THE PREMEIR SHOOTING FACILITY IN THE WORLD. He has said that his objective is to host a World Shoot, and that he would bring all his resources to bare to make it happen. He simply WANTS THE VENUE, as it is the biggest shooting spectacle in all of IPSC. If anyone could do it...it's him. The only thing left to do is to get it on the IPSC General Assembly agenda for the 2008 World Shoot in Bali and have the Prez make the pitch for him. Anybody got Tom on speed dial? I hope he applies for it!

My .02

Edited September 11, 2007 by Barrettone

[uscbigdawg]

Frankly, other than making the pitch, showing up and having overall approval authority on the event (especially in licensing) they shouldn't really have to do much more than that. A private company can create the entire plan and organize the event to the desired scale, to include concept, scheduling, marketing, finance and daily operation as well as AAR. USPSA could handle stage design (physically) and then give said organization a list of props, targets, etc. and they could too handle stage/match supply ordering. Same company would coordinate with IROA and NROI for officials. USPSA and local groups could also help by ensuring adequate staffing and volunteers at the match and on stages.

I don't see how this is a loser for everyone so long as we stay away from the normal "fat" in how it seems the Nationals has been run. Not everyone from USPSA needs to go nor be involved and those that do, frankly if you're not shooting or physically doing some work at the match, then you don't need travel and lodging courtesty of the membership, shooter entry fee or sponsors. You're not doing anything!

USPSA could really make a bank roll on this simply from the licensing of the match and leave everything to again the event coordinating firm and the home facility and simply collect a % of the gross as Eric suggested. This just makes sense. Someone will simply incorporate USPSA's share into their overall plan and are then purely profit (see success) driven for the match to do well. Just seems to make the most sense.

Rich

[Tengu]

Tom Fee (owner of USSA) has made it abundantly clear in the past that the overall objective is for USSA to be THE PREMEIR SHOOTING FACILITY IN THE WORLD. He has said that his objective is to host a World Shoot, and that he would bring all his resources to bare to make it happen. He simply WANTS THE VENUE, as it is the biggest shooting spectacle in all of IPSC. If anyone could do it...it's him. The only thing left to do is to get it on the IPSC General Assembly agenda for the 2008 World Shoot in Bali and have the Prez make the pitch for him. Anybody got Tom on speed dial? I hope he applies for it!

My .02

If anyone in the country can do this well, Tom Fee certainly can- he has created an incredible shooting facility that is just begging for a match of this caliber. I think it is pretty clear now from all of the well-articulated posts that this could be a money maker for USPSA. It really would be a win-win-win for the USPSA, the host facility in the US, and the international shooting community, which would surely benefit from consistent laws and a friendly atmosphere here. I hope that the shooting community in the US will prove supportive of a bid for the WS in 2011. It does seem to be about time that we hosted it again.

[TRNinTX]

I believe that hosting WS is both feasible and should/could be done. But I wager you one thing, if it is turned over to a private entity and they pocket $250,000 after paying USPSA their %, the same group that says it will be a money pit for USPSA will be complaining after the fact that the BOD was irresponsible by letting $250,000 go to someone else

[shred]

Getting guns into the US is something of a pain for foreigners. Have to address that. Yeah it can be done, but it's not as easy as bringing a copy of the match invitation letter to the airport with you when you arrive (Europe), or e-mailing your serial numbers out and getting a signed gun-permit (often including CCW permission) fax back from El General Supremo de BATF the next week (Central America). It is better than needing to check them into an armory every night (Indonesia)

We'd also have to address the us-vs-them aspect of USPSA and IPSC. Some of the new USPSA presidential candidates are more inclined one way or the other on that. No way a WS will be run under USPSA rules.

I'm still all for it.