Re: Re: USIC Registration

From: Don DeLoach <ddeloach_at_comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:31:24 -0600

Not going to argue with this. Sites/contests have got to be self-sustaining.

Don DeLoach

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:41 PM, "John Kagan" <john_kagan_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Don DeLoach" <ddeloach_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > My thesis is still valid: there ought not to be whatis ostensibly two
> > registration fees for the Indoor Nats. The Law of Unintended Consequences
> > will come in when a guy brings planes for three AMA events and only one
> > unofficial event, or vice-versa. He simply won't ante up the $45 to fly the
> > single straggler event.
> >
>
> A reality that we have to face is that the cost of our flying sites needs to be covered.
>
> For sites like Kibbie, where you can fly heavy and light at the same time, a flat fee works well. We have chosen $200 for 5 days (we need 30 participants to cover the costs).
>
> Kent is similar. We ponied up $10 per hour each for the record trial on Saturday.
>
> Sites like Johnson City, that require time slots for compatible weight models, a structure where contestants pay for the events they want to fly works better.
>
> I agree that it would be simpler to have one base fee (this is complicated by the fact that the funds actually go to two different places - AMA and NFFS, and then are further shuffled around). But we'd then just have to adjust the fee structure to end up at a similar bottom line.
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 25 2012 - 22:31:59 CEST