OK -- here's your chance to give us guidance on the "Revenue Sharing" part of our plan.
As you should know, part of our plan for addressing revenue generation is to increase the entry fee for teams and to share the revenue between the regional hosts and the national program budget (by national I mean all expenses at the regional and national level).
Our basic formula was this (for football):
10% goes straight to the regional host as revenue.
7% goes to cover costs of insurance
25% Goes to the NCCS to cover expenses
58% is used as operational funds for the tournament. If there is additional revenue here, the host keeps it.
Additionally, the NIRSA stipend of $2000 would go to the host as support for the regional. And insurance wouldn't be taken out because the entry fee has covered it (7%). And last year, Powerade provided an additional $1000 for schools that could implement their sponsorship at their regional tournament.
Breaking this down to dollars -- in a $300 entry fee -- $30/team goes to the school. $21/team goes for insurance. $75/team goes to support the national program. And $174/team goes to support the operational costs of the tournament.
The $75/team is used to fund travel stipends or the national tournament operations costs or the regional stipends, or t-shirts for regionals or whatever other expense comes with running the national/regional program.
Please give me your perspective on "fairness" for each party. Again, fairness is not defined. Does it seem right? Is it unbalanced? What's the best formula?
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sounds fair to me. Are there some counter-arguments/points?
Apparently not here. At the conference roundtable, there were two real issues conveyed. The first, that the entry fee of $300 is too high, is hard for me to accept and I have written about it here previously. The second, which we decided to take action on, was that we should let regional flag football hosts set thier own fee, as long as they can contribute the "royalty fee" (for lack of a better term) to the NCCS for regional national support. That fee was reduced from $75/team to $50/team for the 2009 flag football season. In my opinion, it's a step backward financially --but it does give us time to chart a longer-term strategy with our hosts, and get them involved in the process. Ultimately, entry fees will need to increase, but over a 5-year window, those increases can be controlled and planned for by both hosts and teams. Our challenge now is to outline how we get from where we are now, to a balanced budget, in 5 years. I have no doubt we can do it.
I will be honest I do not like the idea of revenue sharing. WHAT ABOUT THE SPONSORHIP MONEY? I think we should stop sending committee members to the national who do not need to be there. We could cut over $5k by limiting the NNC's involvement thus reducing the budget cost of labor allocation. Have the NCCS summit at the national conference thus eliminating the travel cost of the NCCS committee to Corvallis, OR (or maybe have the summit every other year). Other things should be tried before we ask regional’s to subsidize a national. UMD has hosted a tournament for over 15 years and the average cost for a team last year was $180. You want us to charge $300?? In these times of economic troubles why? Our tournament has over 70 teams when other regionals have less than 40, why do we have to give so much more, is that fair to our students who coordinate our tournament? It saddens me to say but if the national cannot support itself then maybe we don’t have one. Respectfully, Kurt Klier
one more thought, what if NIRSA did NOT give us the $2k to help run our tournament? -Kurt Klier
Post a Comment