| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| snipes |
Posted - 12/28/2005 : 10:16:27 PM
Taz/Phil -
Tonight you mentioned a new thought with the Captains checks, who makes the final ruling => the players, the captains or the board? Also (separate issue), how many players do we have total in our area each year that pay dues to our league office?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Phil |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 2:07:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by waynec
On another note:
Keeping Prize Checks
...
Total cost to League Management ------- $605
Implementing Money Tournaments
...
Total cost to League Management ------- $4059
If you were us, which would you choose?
From a savings standpoint, I'd choose to keep the prize checks. From a writeoff standpoint, I'd choose to implement the money tournaments. Depends on what you want to get from it, I guess. 
Actually, a writeoff almost never nets as much as it costs, it's just a way to recoup SOME of your expenses. In this case writing off $4000 in uncollected fees would probably reduce our tax bill by about $1000, which means it would still cost us $3000.
quote:
Originally posted by waynec
I understand that much time will be saved in printing up all those checks (not to mention your banks processing time to process them all), and that the regionals will become more manageable. I cannot fault the league operators for wanting to streamline the operation as much as they can. It's good business sense.
Making the regionals manageable is the main reason for implementing the tricups. Printing/processing the checks has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It takes me about two hours to print all of the end of session checks (including the summary that comes along with it) and it takes Taz another couple of hours to organize them all, make notes, etc. The bank doesn't charge us for processing, except a small fee when they are all cashed at once.
quote:
Originally posted by waynec
Overall, I would rather keep the checks since my team uses them to put the money back into the league anyway. One other point that I haven't seen posted here is this. One of the reasons for the prize checks has been (I believe) as an incentive for new people to join the league and play amateur pool. The idea that they will be able to earn prize money at every level of play makes amateur league more desirable (in my opinion, anyway). If this changes so that only a few will reap the benefit, it may have a negative effect on recruitment of new players. Maybe not, but only time will tell.
This has not been the case across the country where tricups have been implemented. Most areas experienced major growth after implementing tricup tournaments with big payouts. Growth is good for everyone, for us as business owners and for our players as well. Significant growth could allow us to fund both the tricups AND end of session prize checks.
Phil
|
| waynec |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 1:03:55 PM
Thanks for the explanation Phil.
OK, now that I have that done, I wanted to just give my own 2 cents. My team will be discussing this with me during the next few days, and their views will be forthcoming.
<2cents>
First, I understand how some team captains feel that the checks should be theirs since they are covering forfeits, paying players fees when they don't have the money at that time, etc. ... all out of their own pocket.
I think it's important that anytime money is being paid out of pocket by the captain (or anyone on a team) that the person who paid out money (above and beyond their own fees) should have first dibs on being repaid out of the prize fund check. This just makes sense to me.
It's equally important (to me) that all of the team members be made aware of a) the existence of the prize check, b) the fact (when necessary) that one or more persons will be being reimbursed for paying for forfeits or other members fees during the session, and c) that the purpose of the check is as prize money for the points earned by the team during the session.
This way, everyone is aware and noone can say that they didn't know or weren't aware. That said, my team (and one other team before this I was on) used the prize check money to pay the annual dues (when they were due) and/or the first few weeks player fees at the beginning of the next session. In my opinion, this is the most fair way to use the money as it benefits the team as a whole and does not favor any one member.
If the changes outlined at the captain's meeting take place, then this will all end. There will no longer be a prize check at the end of session to use for any purpose by any of the teams, except those few who win the local tournament. One thing that I think will change (for the better?) is that the teams who win will be acutely aware of the prize money and there will be no team captains keeping it all for themselves, regardless of the reason.
On another note:
Keeping Prize Checks
...
Total cost to League Management ------- $605
Implementing Money Tournaments
...
Total cost to League Management ------- $4059
If you were us, which would you choose?
From a savings standpoint, I'd choose to keep the prize checks. From a writeoff standpoint, I'd choose to implement the money tournaments. Depends on what you want to get from it, I guess.
I understand that much time will be saved in printing up all those checks (not to mention your banks processing time to process them all), and that the regionals will become more manageable. I cannot fault the league operators for wanting to streamline the operation as much as they can. It's good business sense.
Overall, I would rather keep the checks since my team uses them to put the money back into the league anyway. One other point that I haven't seen posted here is this. One of the reasons for the prize checks has been (I believe) as an incentive for new people to join the league and play amateur pool. The idea that they will be able to earn prize money at every level of play makes amateur league more desirable (in my opinion, anyway). If this changes so that only a few will reap the benefit, it may have a negative effect on recruitment of new players. Maybe not, but only time will tell.
</2cents>
|
| snipes |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 12:03:31 PM
And whoever said I couldn't start a fire with a couple sticks?
OK, I personally think $20 a year is cheap, too cheap! Anyone play softball or basketball on a team? Look at what you pay per season , not per year. For those of you that don't know, it could range anywhere between $25 and $45 per season/per sport. If you start saving $3.33 this Jan. you could afford to pay a $40 fee next Jan. that would last you for 3 seasons. Let's break it down even further and look through a microscope; it's $0.11 a day (a DIME and a PENNY). So, with that being said, I think Phil's idea of doing both sounds like a good one. We get the "end of the season" bonus check (not Captain's check) issued and we play the tournament too. I do like the idea of sending more people to regionals, the more we send to regional, the better our odds are to make Nationals and bring home the gold. Or whatever it is you bring home, I have never made it that far  |
| Phil |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 11:05:06 PM
You almost got it right, Wayne. Everything up through the end of playoffs would be the same as it is now. Teams would earn qualification the way it is now. The difference would be what they qualify for. Instead of qualifying directly for regionals, the teams would qualify for a tricup tournament. There would be about 16-20 teams in the 8-Ball tricup and 10-15 in the 9-Ball tricup.
The top eight finishers in the tricup tournament qualify for regionals. In the spring sixteen teams would qualify in 8-Ball, resulting in a field of 32 for the regionals. The field for 9-Ball regionals would be 24. Assuming we will be sending four 8-Ball teams and three 9-Ball teams to Nationals, that means every bracket in regionals would be eight teams (or less, see below). If we grow enough to send more teams, the brackets in regionals become even smaller.
To make the top eight in a tricup, an 8-Ball team would only have to win one or two rounds. In 9-Ball a team could make the top eight without even playing a match, depending on the draw.
The top four teams (or eight, depending on the money) in the tricup tournament would win money. Here is an example breakdown:
Top 2 receive $3000 each
Third place (2 teams) get $1000 each
Fifth place (4 teams) get $500 each
That's $10,000 in each tournament, or $20,000 total. We probably would only play down to the final two teams. These numbers increase as we grow.
In order to fund the tournament we would have to eliminate the end-of-session checks that currently go to every team. That seems to be the main point of contention with the captains.
Note that the smaller fields in regionals will also mean fewer matches there to win the trip to Nationals. Basically the tricup would be the first round or two of regionals. In addition, if a team qualifies more than once through the tricup tournaments, the field for regionals would be reduced even more. If we have byes in the regionals, they would first go to teams that qualified through more than one tricup tournament.
If a team does not qualify for regionals through the tricup, they are able to try again the following session. With the current setup, you get one chance. If you lose the first round of regionals (and half of the teams do), you're done until next year. With tricups, you could lose the first round in the summer tricup AND the first round in the fall tricup, but still make it to Nationals.
If a team is qualified for regionals and wins their division again, the highest-finishing non-qualified team (based on division standings at the end of the regular session) will be invited to the tricup. If there is money in the tricup, the division winner will also be invited to play.
That's basically it in a nutshell. Pretty simple eh?
Phil
|
| waynec |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 5:30:44 PM
I need to go over the details of this idea again. Sorry, but my memory isn't as good as it used to be, and if this had been presented in writing it would be easier to recall the facts when trying to restate the issue to others (my team, in specific).
As I recall it, the idea is that instead of playoffs to qualify for regionals, playoffs would be for qualifying for the local tournament. The prize money would be used as prize(s?) for first (and second? maybe third?) place in the tournament. Also, the first place winner of the tournament would be qualified for regionals.
Qualifiers for the local tournament would be the same as they are now for regionals (ie. 1st place in a division of 12 or more teams automatically qualifies for the tournament; 2nd, 3rd, 4th and wild card play playoffs to determine the qualifier for the local tournament; in divisions less than 12 teams, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and wild card play to determine the qualifier for the tournament).
This would mean that the prize checks we receive per session now would stop in leiu of the tournament. It would also mean that fewer teams would qualify for regionals, thereby making the regional tournament smaller and easier to facilitate.
Also, does this mean that in a division of 12 or more teams 2 teams will qualify for the tournament, but in a division with less than 12 teams only one team will qualify? Do I have the facts correct?
|
| Doug Gill |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 07:54:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Wyndy
Wow Doug....I have to say for all of the captains that spend our "OWN" money on a weekly basis (that adds up over the season) paying for players that leave before paying, don't have it that week or even a forfeit that you have no right to say that captains should have no right to a portion of the prize money....We have every right to be repayed for the personal money that we laid out so that players could continue playing without the whole team being penalized...
Wyndy.......in no way did I mean to infer that you were not intitled to recoup money that you spent(loaned?) out-of-pocket for your players/team. I was referring to those individuals who just automatically assume that the money is theirs. Lots of teams work out lots of ways to SHARE the prize fund check.
Sorry if my reply came off as harsh, again....it wasn't intended that way.
Good Shooting! |
| Doug Gill |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 07:29:48 AM
There is one other thing you forgot in your calculations Ron. You forgot to adjust $15.00 (approx.) that you received from the League office (in the form of Taz Bux) for the same reasons I cited in my post above.
But then again, maybe I am making an assumption that all captains run their teams the same; from making their players stay current with their fees to making sure that all their paperwork is filled out correctly and in on time.
That's what I get for assuming!
Good Shooting!
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Y
If the final decision is up to Taz and Phil then why ask.
However,if do want a captains accounting of funds then here it goes.
Team check for Paddy Cakes +83.70
-------------dues discount -30.00
-------------forfeits -20.00
-------------candy for team -15.00 est.
-------------team dinner -128.62
--------------ulscer from players priceless
----------------Total cost to me $109.92
I think the checks help offset various costs and are a good thing. Perhaps if every captain had to post how the money is used then no one would feel cheated. The plan Phil outlined regarding rewarding the best teams could also be looked at as penalize the losing teams.
The current system rewards all teams and is fair. Please don't fix something that isn't broken.
Thank you,
Ron
|
| Phil |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 02:50:21 AM
Snipes, the lease on a location big enough for 12-16 tables (what we'd need for regionals to improve the current situation) would eat up double membership fees in less than two months. If you want to purchase the property you'd probably need to collect about $4000 per member. And that's if you could get all the members to agree, even those who would probably never see the inside of the location except during regionals. That's pretty steep, especially when you consider other captains have issues with not being able to cover $40 a session for out-of-pocket expenses caused by players who don't even have $5 to play a match...
Now, if we doubled membership fees and gave the extra $20 per player to the captains, we could implement the money tournaments AND the captains wouldn't lose anything!
Phil
|
| Phil |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 02:36:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Y
If the final decision is up to Taz and Phil then why ask.
However,if do want a captains accounting of funds then here it goes.
Team check for Paddy Cakes +83.70
-------------dues discount -30.00
-------------forfeits -20.00
-------------candy for team -15.00 est.
-------------team dinner -128.62
--------------ulscer from players priceless
----------------Total cost to me $109.92
I think the checks help offset various costs and are a good thing. Perhaps if every captain had to post how the money is used then no one would feel cheated. The plan Phil outlined regarding rewarding the best teams could also be looked at as penalize the losing teams.
The current system rewards all teams and is fair. Please don't fix something that isn't broken.
Thank you,
Ron
Why ask? Do you know how many things we have decided NOT to implement based on feedback from our players?
I notice you included team dinner and candy in your calculations. If you take that out you are actually making about $33 and not losing $109.
Here's some accounting for you, in case you're interested.
Keeping Prize Checks
Amount collected for prize checks ----- $7/team/week
Number of teams each week ------------- 210
Number of weeks ----------------------- 12
Total amount collected ---------------- $17,640
Total amount of past due fees --------- $1499
Total amount deducted from checks ----- $1094
Total uncollected fees ---------------- $405
Ulcer from captains ------------------- Priceless, but 30 times yours
Pizza and candy for captains' meetings- $200
Total cost to League Management ------- $605
Implementing Money Tournaments
Amount collected for prize checks ----- $7/team/week
Number of teams each week ------------- 210
Number of weeks ----------------------- 12
Total amount collected ---------------- $17,640
Total amount of past due fees --------- $1499
Total amount deducted from checks ----- $0
Total uncollected fees ---------------- $1499
Prize money for tournaments ----------- $20,000
Ulcer from captains ------------------- Priceless, but 30 times yours
Pizza and candy for captains' meetings- $200
Total cost to League Management ------- $4059
If you were us, which would you choose?
Now, of course the prize money for the tournaments will even out over the course of a year, but even then it will cost us $1100 more per session in uncollected past due fees.
I asked a question in our Ojai meeting that got an interesting response. I asked how many of the captains there had never been on a team that won the playoffs. Nobody raised their hands. There's no such thing as the best team over the long run, not in a handicapped league.
Your calculations assumed you kept the check (and paid for dinner with the money). If you win the top payout in a session-ending tournament just once every seven or eight years, you cover your expenses.
Bottom line, it's a zero-sum game as far as the teams/players are concerned. However, we are trying to plan for growth here. We will eventually do the tricup tournaments to reduce the field for regionals whether there is money or not. We just can't get much bigger and keep doing it the way we do. In addition, as the league grows the money in the tricups will increase, meaning more teams get money and/or teams get more money. With the current system the checks will never grow (unless we increase fees). The average team will get back $7 per week. Always.
Phil
|
| Ron Y |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 10:42:41 PM
If the final decision is up to Taz and Phil then why ask.
However,if do want a captains accounting of funds then here it goes.
Team check for Paddy Cakes +83.70
-------------dues discount -30.00
-------------forfeits -20.00
-------------candy for team -15.00 est.
-------------team dinner -128.62
--------------ulscer from players priceless
----------------Total cost to me $109.92
I think the checks help offset various costs and are a good thing. Perhaps if every captain had to post how the money is used then no one would feel cheated. The plan Phil outlined regarding rewarding the best teams could also be looked at as penalize the losing teams.
The current system rewards all teams and is fair. Please don't fix something that isn't broken.
Thank you,
Ron
|
| snipes |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 10:33:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jinny
quote:
Originally posted by snipes
Perhaps if there were enough people in our league, we could double the membership fees for a few years, forfeit team checks for a few years and get a place of our own. You know, a
South Coast pool room for such events. Maybe sounds stupid and far fetched, but knowing the numbers would have given me a better perspective as to my thoughts.
What are you thinking snipes? I'm listening.
Jinny
Jinny -
Depending on the amount of money, I thought we could lease a place for league play. I know a few people that might be interested in putting coin op. tables in. This would be a good place to hold tournaments, make-up matches, play-offs and could second as a league office. Put a few vending machines in etc. and the money made in the machines and tables would help pay rent. I know it may be a long shot, but it is possible with the right minds at work and correct management. We have a lot of resources in our membership and could probably get some really great deals. Those are some of my thoughts! |
| Wyndy |
Posted - 12/31/2005 : 2:51:29 PM
Wow Doug....I have to say for all of the captains that spend our "OWN" money on a weekly basis (that adds up over the season) paying for players that leave before paying, don't have it that week or even a forfeit that you have no right to say that captains should have no right to a portion of the prize money....We have every right to be repayed for the personal money that we laid out so that players could continue playing without the whole team being penalized... |
| Kerry Randolph |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 12:34:03 PM
You will have to excuse Doug he is a little sensitive since he missed his league championship match on Thursday. By the way Doug how did you guys do? |
| Jinny |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 09:34:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by snipes
Perhaps if there were enough people in our league, we could double the membership fees for a few years, forfeit team checks for a few years and get a place of our own. You know, a
South Coast pool room for such events. Maybe sounds stupid and far fetched, but knowing the numbers would have given me a better perspective as to my thoughts.
What are you thinking snipes? I'm listening.
Jinny |
| Doug Gill |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 07:15:48 AM
Snipes....no offense taken . You just happened to open a door that I upsets me and I had to walk through.
Good Shooting! |
|
|
