|
Post by Inigo Montoya on Oct 27, 2003 7:33:20 GMT -6
I see one of the "Super Regional" RYC tournaments will be here in Houston at Rice after the holidays.
Pretty nifty coup, Maher.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Nov 5, 2003 23:37:18 GMT -6
from the flier:Fees: $5.00 Pre-Registration; or $10.00 at the door – (register online at
$35.00 for first event; $15.00 each subsequent event.
Pre-registration deadline is December 25th
USFA Rules and Membership: USFA rules will be enforced. Youth 10 fencers must use No. 2 or 0 blades. All fencers must be members of the USFA .You will be asked to show your membership card or other proof of membership to the registration committee. USFA membership forms will be available at the tournament.
Age Groups: USFA birth year rules apply as posted on the USFA web site: Youth 14—1992-1989; Youth 12—1994-1991; Youth 10—1996-1993;
100% up to DE’s of best 2 out of 3 five touch bouts.
Initial seeding, seeding after pools and final placements will be posted in the venue. Fencers are responsible for verifying and signing their pool and DE sheets. Changes will not be made after fencing commences.
Fees: Pre-register by December 25th and pay only $5.00 per person ($10.00 to register at the door) plus event fees: 35$ for the first event, $15 for each subsequent event. Register Online Here (www.askfred.net)
For additional information contact Salle Mauro at (832) 778-8745 or e-mail mauro@rice.edu
Registration Closing Times: Registration will open at 7 AM each day. All times indicate close of registration.Fencers should arrive at least 30 minutes prior to close of registration. Check-in is required on both days. Fencing will begin as soon as possible after the close of registration. [glow=red,2,300]I also have a copy of the flier if anyone needs it emailed to them.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Maysel on Jan 13, 2004 2:20:17 GMT -6
I am very unhappy with the Super RYC held at Rice University on January 3 and 4. I think that Salle Mauro tried really hard to host the event, and they did a number of things very, very well such as having a quick registration desk, enough equipment in working order, and an adequate number of referees, but I think they were simply unprepared for the huge number of kids that fenced in the numerous events. The venue was simply entirely too small for everything they were trying to do, and the people way too many for the size of the two gyms, which were seperated by a narrow hallway, and entered by way of two seperate locker rooms for men and women. There were also inadequate signs to direct people where to go. The result was that events backed up, and there was a lot of confusion as to where the fencers should be for their events. Also, the kids became understandably loud as they waited. These are just kids, after all, and they were trying to entertain themselves as they waited. This caused further confusion as the worker with a bullhorn trying to call out the events was literally drowned out by the din. The result was that I know of at least one fencer not being allowed to fence because he did not know where to go until after his event had started. Many of the parents and coaches were trying to help the kids in a number of weapons at different age levels, and could not find where to send their kids. They were forced to run between the two gyms to try to keep track of when the kids should report to their assigned strips. They could not be there for their kids as they should have been because of this. I know that the people trying to enter the results and seed the pools where completely overwhelmed; I saw them frantically trying to keep up. And this is a generic complaint for almost all tournaments, but why would anyone think that posting just one list, printed in 10 or 12 point type, in one place, is adequate to inform the fencers where to go? I understand the reasons that USFA is running the Super Regionals to qualify kids in the junior-level events, but I think they put an entirely too great a burden on the local host club. If USFA is going to put that kind of load on the backs of small, local clubs, then they need to be there to help, they need to help with organization before and during the tournament, they need to make sure there is a large enough place for it to be held, and they need to put the people and the money into the system to make sure it works.
|
|
|
Post by El Cid on Mar 23, 2004 22:11:46 GMT -6
I just read the comments about the Super Regional Tournament that was organized by Salle Mauro in January. I agree with the writer about the problems to accommodate such an event in the space chosen. I disagree with the conclusion that the USFA should have contributed/helped financially to assist the poor overwhelmed hosting club.
The problems were numerous, but can in my opinion all be reduced to one main issue: GREED, how to make the most money for the host club, cutting corners everywhere and taking advantage of all the participants.
The owner of Salle Mauro is notorious for all sorts of schemes and misrepresentations to extract money from everybody while pretending to promote the sport of fencing. It's not too difficult to evaluate the economics of this tournament:
1. With fees of $35 for the first event and $15 for a second event, plus a registration of $10 ($5 if preregistered), it is a fair assumption that each fencer paid about $50 for competing (most fenced in 2 events, several in more, few in 1 event). We will find out when all results will be posted how many participants were registered, but my guess is that the gross revenue for the event was in the order of $50,000, probably more than that.
2. Expenses were kept to a minimum. Rental of the facility (will check with Rice, but doubt that they exceeded $5,000. Pending a verification with Rice, let's be more conservative and assume it was $10,000). Judging was handled mostly by volunteers, but let's budget a generous $3,000. Put another miscellaneous expenses of $2,000 and the net take of Salle Mauro was in the order of $35,000. Not bad for 2 days work done mostly by unpaid volunteers.
3. A super RYC should have electrified strips (none were there) certified judges (very few, but instead many kids or otherwise non qualified judges) and lots of volunteers (parents of the club fencers) carried the day.
This is what damages the sport of fencing. The experience should have been on par with other NAC tournaments. The cost to the fencers were, but the service provided wasn't. Let's all make sure that this doesen't happen again by not rewarding the greediness of few unscrupolous people posing as the leading fencing Salle in the USA.
As soon as I can get the exact figures, I'll revise the economics and post them accordingly.
El Cid and his Colada
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 24, 2004 0:36:11 GMT -6
A few facts, without commentary one way or the other: The results long ago were posted, at askfred.net/Results/results.php?tournament_id=378There were 280 fencers who collectively participated in 438 events, plus any fencers who withdrew during pools. Well, actually, it could have been 279 fencers if "Fencer Excuded" is a person who finished a different event without being excluded. New readers of this thread seeing activity in it in March should not get confused. Salle Mauro just hosted RYC #2 on the Rice University campus Mar. 20-21. But, this thread concerns the Super RYC which Salle Mauro hosted on the Rice University campus Jan. 3-4.
|
|
|
Post by El Cid on Mar 25, 2004 0:38:00 GMT -6
I love when someone can precisely point out my mistakes. I'd love even more if the same person would go thru the analysis of the revenues/expenses of the Super RYC or any other regional tournament to learn from it.
I did not attend the Katy Blades tournament last fall organized by Skopic. Everyone I spoke to and who was there confirmed how well and professionally the tournament was run, from the judges, to the trophies and to the snacks and refreshments provided for the judges.
I also heard from Skopic that he "lost a bit of money" in this tournament. This is too bad, since EVERYONE that was there had a very pleasant experience and Skopic should not have lost any of his own money, after all his work and time.
I was at both RYC tournaments organized by Salle Mauro at Rice, in January and last weekend. My personal opinion aside, I heard plenty of complaining about the way the tournament was put together. I am ready to bet with anyone that Salle Mauro did not lose money, and in fact made plenty, by skimping on the quality and services provided.
This is why an audit of both tournaments would be a good thing. Main expense was the rental of the facility. The rest we can guess, since I doubt Salle Mauro will open their books.
One question to MTD. Did you really go through the entire list of participants and count the individual participants, eliminating multiple entries of the same fencer? If you did, can you fill in the blanks so we can do an estimate of costs and revenues?
We will be very grateful if you can help.
El Cid and his Colada
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 25, 2004 9:58:09 GMT -6
"El Cid" cannot look to me for information about revenues or expenses. I have no knowledge of any revenues which might have been waived as a quid pro quo for receiving services which ordinarily would have been expenses. I have no idea what referee wages are, but for this tournament probably were from $0 to $80 per referee per day for local referees whether or not the referees were associated with the host club. Referees from out of town can vary widely in expense. Facility rental was probably but not necessarily much cheaper than imagined. The facility also has a tradition of charging every athlete $5 (which the athlete himself may never realize), but there is considerable doubt about for which tournaments, both recent and historical, this charge has actually been collected. I know with absolute certainty for one recent tournament and many historical tournaments, and this isn't one of them.
All I can offer with certainty is the arithmetic for registration revenue, ignoring any late fees, ignoring any fee waivers, and ignoring any fencers who withdrew during pools and therefore were not listed among the finishers.
The Super RYC had as finishers 280 fencers who collectively participated in 438 events. I found this information by cutting and pasting the askFRED data into Excel, then sorting by fencer name, then setting a column to 1 if the fencer is different from the previous fencer and 0 otherwise. I had better things to do with my life than actually read the fencer names.
If you assume a price of $25 plus $15 per event (why on earth does anyone describe their charges in terms of a mandatory registration price which includes zero events, then charge a higher price for the first of multiple events?), then the per-fencer revenue was $7,000 and the per-event revenue was $6,550. The sum of those two is $13,550. Late fees would increase this, withdrawals during pools would increase this, and fee waivers would decrease this.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 25, 2004 10:33:57 GMT -6
See why we want Matt on OUR side?
|
|
|
Post by El Cid on Mar 25, 2004 11:52:17 GMT -6
Mat, I knew that you didn't collate the names by hand. It was just a lame joke on my side. I also know that a computer whiz like you could do what you did very quickly end efficiently. Thank you for sorting the data.
I am interested though in the next step, i.e., a real accounting/audit of these events for two reasons, (1) to find out WHERE IS THE MONEY? and (2) what can be done to improve the tournaments in the division without taxing the efforts of some (Skopic) or fattening the pocket of others (Hamza).
It would be helpful, in my opinion, to find this out since there are always many ways to skin the cat. We can find sponsors who could offer a nominal (or substantial) contribution to these events to BENEFIT THE PARTICIPANT FENCERS and the sport of fencing, not the (greedy?) organizers.
But first we need to clean the house and have a real idea of where the money goes. Audit time y'all!
El Cid and his Colada
|
|
|
Post by curious on Mar 25, 2004 11:56:08 GMT -6
Just a note to MTD about registration fees being different from event fees - it is annoying but that is how USFA and pretty much every other event promoter does it.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 25, 2004 12:55:10 GMT -6
"curious", I think we misunderstand each other. I can't agree with you. When I paid for 2003 Summer Nationals, I paid a registration fee, and then I paid an amount for each of events which was the same amount without regard to whether it was my first or my fourth event. Two numbers. For this Super RYC, the price was expressed in three numbers.
My point was that it is silly to say "$5 registration plus $35 for event #1 plus $15 for each event after #1. That's needless arithmetic for the organizers, and for everyone fencing more than one event. Instead, just say "$25 registration plus $15 per event including #1" or maybe say "$40 for the first event, $15 per event after the first." On my recommendations, the former is the way (although with a smaller registration charge) that the 2004 Divisionals is expressing it, and (also with smaller numbers and the coincidence that the registration fee and the event fee were the same number) that the 2004 Van Buskirk just expressed it.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Mar 25, 2004 14:13:23 GMT -6
See why we want Matt on OUR side? LOL!! HEHE Yes, we want the mini computer working for us!
|
|
|
Post by S Simpson on Mar 27, 2004 11:17:12 GMT -6
The separate registration fee for Nationals is mainly there to cover Team fencers who are not fencing in any individual events. Local tournaments that have team events & haven't posted a lump sum fee to enter a team should keep the registration fee as such. Otherwise tournaments could list $XX for 1st event, $XX for each additional. Of course w/ the newer trend of letting 'A' fencers fence for free, I noticed a good way of handling that is to have the 'A' fencer pay for just registration - the event itself is free. In this case, the registration fee listed separately makes sense.
On an aside, what about discounted prices for 'B's & 'C's? Why should the 'A's get all of the perks?
|
|