Tournament fees and Mission Statement

[Daniel Cranston]

I think when Towson hosted Nationals in 2011 we also took a loss (albeit not as severe as the Holiday Silver apparently), but I believe it was in the range of $50 after everything.

Well written post Paul (as usual).

[Zach Walker]

I agree with Daniel. Very well said Paul. With that said, how much more financial support do you think the ASA should provide the club that hosts the National Championships? I agree with you, I'm just not sure what that dollar amount should be though.

[flicksoccer]

I like the idea of charging in the neighborhood of $10-$20 annually and allowing a player to apply the $2 tournament entry fee against the annual dues up to the annual dues amount. Also how about an ASA "friends of" booster club with different giving levels with targeted gifts at different levels (T-shirts, donated equipment)? Almost all clubs I'm aware of have this type of sponsorship from its members (and interested business partners).

[verb]

As mentioned earlier, I think we need to work backward from what the operating budget is (which is small.) It seems that the ASA doesn't need much money. The real expense of the ASA is the time involved from it's members, which they happily donate.

Annual dues aren't necessary because the ASA has been running without them.

Could someone from the ASA tell us what the yearly outgoing expenses are? I'll put my money where my mouth is. Tell me a reasonable figure and I'll write you a check to fund next year's season so you can eliminate the $2 fee. After next season, then ask for donations. I'm not well off, this is just one of my main hobbies and I've wasted over $200 buying board games that I didn't end up liking this past year. At least I know my money would be going for something great!

---

Since not everyone in the ASA cares about Nationals, I think there should just be a higher fee to those that attend to help the organizer cover the cost of it. Any tournament fees should be based on the cost of hosting. If I hold a tournament at my house because only 8 people show up, I'm not going to charge anything. If 20 want to come play and I need to rent a place, I'll charge a fair amount to help offset what it's costing me. Since the ASA does not provide any financial assistance, all the money should just go to the host because as Paul stated, he loses money every tournament.

Paul said it could cost up to $800 to rent a venue for Nationals weekend (and he's hosted a bunch of stuff.) If that was the case and 20 people showed up, $40 a person would cover the cost of the venue. Down to around $27 if 30 people showed up. In my opinion, even at $40, this is a bargain for the amount of fun you have over the weekend.

To play in the Nationals for the title is an honor (or in my case, not to be in the bottom 3rd!,) and I think those that want to take Subbuteo that seriously should be the ones who are the ASA's greatest benefactors. If you want to grow the game, let Joe Public play in regular tournaments without the fee and let the rest of us pony up the money for the serious tournament.

[Daniel Cranston]

Apr 6, 2013 17:27:16 GMT -5 Zach Walker said:

I agree with Daniel. Very well said Paul. With that said, how much more financial support do you think the ASA should provide the club that hosts the National Championships? I agree with you, I'm just not sure what that dollar amount should be though.

That is the tough question. That is why in my post I mentioned that the amount should be tied to activity in that year (IE: How much tournament fee money was made) and that the BoD can also set a minimum / maximum as they see fit.

Here is some data for you via the Rankings spreadsheet I have. For those that don't know, the ASA "new year" is September 1st. This is because Nationals usually take place sometime over the summer, thus making the new rankings year beginning sometime after Nationals.

So far this season there have been 82 participants in ASA tournaments. Hypothetically, this would generate $164 dollars for the ASA. Since there has been a lot of new players this year though, that number is probably closer to $130 if I had to guess.

NOTE: When I say participants I don't mean 82 different people, I am just looking at the number of people playing in each tournament so the same person will be there twice if they played in 2 tournaments.

Last season (Sept 2011 to Aug 2012) there were 78 participants hypothetically generating $156 for the ASA.

Two seasons ago, (Sept 2010 to Aug 2011) there were 96 participants, hypothetically generating $192 for the ASA.

Three seasons ago, (Sept 2009 to Aug 2010) there were 233 participants (although I think this number should be higher since it looks like the Nationals for 2010 weren't added to the rankings for some reason). So this season probably generated somewhere around $500 for the ASA.

4 seasons ago, (Sept 2008 to Aug 2009) there were 393!!!! participants, hypothetically generating around $800 for the ASA.

5 seasons ago, (Sept 2007 to Aug 2008) there were 412!!!! participants, hypothetically generating around $800 for the ASA.

These are just numbers based on rankings and without checking the actual Treasury increases during the timeframes. Because of that what I'm saying should obviously be taken with a grain of salt as the collection methods probably aren't the most effective. Hopefully that helps give some background info for possibly going forward with the stipend amounts.

[Zach Walker]

Brandon, can you reach out to Dewey perhaps on Facebook to find out what our yearly outgoing expenses are? As treasurer, he should have the best handle on that. In all honesty (it's sad, I know) I have no clue what they are. I just believe it's the standard $350 that we give out each year for ASA Nationals subsidy and I have no idea how many tourney fees we have generated over the past few years but I'm sure it's not much. I'll connect you two on Facebook though. I appreciate your help, you are a rock star.

[Zach Walker]

Wow thanks for that data Daniel, that is very interesting to read. I think more importantly, we need to discuss why activity level was so high in 2008-2010 as opposed to now. You'd think as the internet and technology get stronger with every passing day that more people over the years would have connected and started playing. I personally find it very sad and troubling that numbers have declined so much.

Anyone have any ideas as to why that is or should I start a separate thread for that topic/discussion?

Thanks.

Zach

[Daniel Cranston]

I realized a messed up a few things in my last post. Check the revised version.

[Daniel Cranston]

Apr 7, 2013 10:39:50 GMT -5 Zach Walker said:

Wow thanks for that data Daniel, that is very interesting to read. I think more importantly, we need to discuss why activity level was so high in 2008-2010 as opposed to now. You'd think as the internet and technology get stronger with every passing day that more people over the years would have connected and started playing. I personally find it very sad and troubling that numbers have declined so much.

Anyone have any ideas as to why that is or should I start a separate thread for that topic/discussion?

Thanks.

Zach

Probably best to discuss elsewhere, but I'll just give a quick comment. I think a lot of it has to do with St. Louis and Texas guys going "underground." Judging by the tournaments listed in the rankings, the 2007-2009 years had at least 100 participants from those areas. That in combination with WTSL not being as active and the lack of travel in 2010 and on has really slowed down the ASA participation.

[verb]

If those few seasons did generate $800 per year, I can see why the ASA has so much in the Treasury.

I'm sure people cutting back due to the economy had a lot to do with low turnout the last few years. Travel is expensive if you can't just drive to a tournament, but even then, with gas and lodging, it can add up if you try to go to a few of them.

I'll speak with Dewey, thanks Zach.

[paulpate]

Interesting to see the trend in numbers. I agree with Paul Eyes, the $2 fee is nominal. You either want to participate or don't. I don't think the $2 fee impacts the numbers one way or the other.

I'm also not too concerned about what you do with the money. You're never gonna please everyone. Pick an approach and go with it.

My theory on the declining numbers is communication. It is essentially free. Put the word out and people will want to get on board. But, I think the message needs to be concise, like - Fair Play or something like that.

Also, a game like Subbuteo should thrive in rough economic times, unless the time and travel are the real barriers. It is often difficult to find games without some travel.

[verb]

I guess there are 2 ways to go with it. Keep the fee in place and give all the leftover money (after operating expenses) to the host of the Nationals to help pay from venue rental.

Or don't give any money to the Nationals and drop the fee.

[Paul Eyes]

Just a suggestion, but a middle ground could be to consider suspending all fees for say a 2 year period and then seeing what happens with activity. This 2 year period would then be a time to evaluate whether clubs/individuals currently on the sidelines would step up their involvement.

Paul

[Zach Walker]

Brandon, were you able to touch base with Dewey to see what the annual operating budget is?

Zach

[verb]

I haven't yet Zach. I've spent the last week painting and moving into our new house. Plus we don't have Internet yet so I've had to do everything on my phone so my activity has been sparse.