I have a few questions.

Most of you have not reviewed the latest required fee schedule for 2006 so I wanted to get a little input. The PDGA fee schedule is required, not suggested and yet I already see several tournaments that are not following it. What sanctioning will the PDGA impose? Would it not be better for the PDGA to say this is a suggested fee shcedule? Should attendance not define the cost to enter? Obviously if the entry fee is too high, the tournament will draw fewer people, unless the tournament is well established in which case most people will pay extra for the the privaledge to play in the tournament.

The PDGA requires that payouts conform to the PDGA payout tables, but I know of several tournamounts that do not. What sanctioning will the PDGA impose for not following these tables? I am asing this, because of the same argument/discussion that is going on in another thread about paytouts.

Is everyone familiar with the flattening of the payouts? Several years back the Advanced were paid from a different payout table than the Rec and Int divisions. The table was between the Open table and the Rec/Int table. Now all amatuers are paid from the same table and it is very flat.

I am sure more rambling to come.

one idea to get everyone on board might be to have a place in the DGWN where the PDGA announces such changes ahead of time for all members to see, and making clear to TD's that this is a required change -- based on member feedback. i was pleased when i read the chart because imo lowering entry fees makes tournaments a lot more user-friendly, but my concern is that many TD's may not follow it... Maybe this is already included in the upcoming Winter DGWN along with a summary of the 2006 Rules changes? :confused:

I am speaking from a TD's stand point only. Most of the tournaments lose money. For the non-TD this may be a little suprising, because you see all that money passing hands.

Another suprise, TD's do not make money on open entrys. The PDGA will allow a 10%, not to exceed $100, off the top to cover expenses. Trust me, if the tournament is anything, $100 will only marginally help. Most tournaments come close to breaking even off of Amateur merchandise and disc sales. By lowering the max entry fee, the payout decreases and the ability to clear costs decreases.

I can well see everal tournament directors either not running another tournament or increasing the cost of a retail disc. Should not the market determine the fee?

TDs have more latitude to include items in the entry fee that can be deducted to get to the PDGA net entry fee. For example, lunch and allocated overhead for park reservation fees can be deducted. Let's say entry fee is posted as $50. A lunch ($5), overhead ($5), series fee ($5), PDGA fee ($3) and ace fund ($2) would make the net entry fee $30 for calculating payouts.

It is also important to note that the chart basically shows the entry fee applied toward payout for all divisions. It does not include PDGA per player fees, local series fees, or local club fees.

One thing that is not shown is how park usage fees are covered. For all parks that have them, it is going to be harder to cover those costs unless they are designated as local club fees.

I would like to see all TDs break down the entry fee into the payout, PDGA fees, series fees, and local club fees so the player can be more informed.

One other question, does the mandatory player's pack for A & B tiers come out of the listed fee, or can it be added to that amount ? For Rec and Junior members, it drops the payout per player amount to $5 ($30 - $25 player's pack). B & C Tiers will have $10 ($20 - $10 player's pack - B and $10 entry - C) for payout.

Chuck,

Yes I did notice that, but the bottom line is that it still restricts the am payout and the am payout is the only way a TD can come close to breaking even. Gary asks the question if the mandatory player package can be considered a seperate fee. This would help.

You also did not answer, disciplanary action the PDGA will be taking if a TD does not follow the schedule. I have already seen multiple tournaments that are not following the guideline and the agreement does not say should follow it say must.


TDs have more latitude to include items in the entry fee that can be deducted to get to the PDGA net entry fee. For example, lunch and allocated overhead for park reservation fees can be deducted. Let's say entry fee is posted as $50. A lunch ($5), overhead ($5), series fee ($5), PDGA fee ($3) and ace fund ($2) would make the net entry fee $30 for calculating payouts.

For the general purpose of answering your question, it was answered in one of the other threads about the payouts and potential disciplanary action, the one thread you already referred to.

But if you looking to blow the whistle on a particular event or TD, this is not the place to do it.

The PDGA has taken steps in the past to get tiered events in line with the requirements however there are outside litigating factors that may allow wiggle room from event to event, just as it should be.

Jerry, I had the same questions, I for one, do not like the new payouts for Pro or the new entry fee MAXIMUM's on some tournament.

I am the 1st one to tell you that $100 is too much for a tournament for me, but for an A-tier, I would expect to pay that much.

On the other hand, $50 for a 2 day B-tier is really low in my book.

Now if it really gets more players out, then I guess I am ok with it.

Jerry, I for one will be asking the PDGA if I can keep my current entry fees in place. It is not that far off and everyone always tells me they get there moneys worth. (btw, I think I have an Asst TD this year. :D)

I am not blowing the whistle on any TD's. If the PDGA wants to enforce these items, they can easily do so by reviewing the TD report. This of course assumes the TD reports the correct data, but I cannot see any TD going to the trouble of falsifying a report just to charge more at an event and payout more to the amateur players. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

As for the wiggle room, though the PDGA has allowed for "event fees", the agreement states the TD will use the fee schedule, not should use it and this does not allow the TD to vary the entry fee for anything beyond series fees, park usage fees, etc. Now I guess I could add a club fee and add it back in for payout, but this would seem to be to be at odds with what the PDGA is trying to accomplish.

Which thread are you talking about below? I was referring to the one on a proposed payout based on score.


For the general purpose of answering your question, it was answered in one of the other threads about the payouts and potential disciplanary action, the one thread you already referred to.

But if you looking to blow the whistle on a particular event or TD, this is not the place to do it.

The PDGA has taken steps in the past to get tiered events in line with the requirements however there are outside litigating factors that may allow wiggle room from event to event, just as it should be.

I say let the public determine what a trounament is worth. If it is too much, people will not come. If it is priced well, as I believe yours to be, it will pull quite a few players.

The asst. TD, would not be me?


Jerry, I had the same questions, I for one, do not like the new payouts for Pro or the new entry fee MAXIMUM's on some tournament.

I am the 1st one to tell you that $100 is too much for a tournament for me, but for an A-tier, I would expect to pay that much.

On the other hand, $50 for a 2 day B-tier is really low in my book.

Now if it really gets more players out, then I guess I am ok with it.

Jerry, I for one will be asking the PDGA if I can keep my current entry fees in place. It is not that far off and everyone always tells me they get there moneys worth. (btw, I think I have an Asst TD this year. :D)

I think the original question in this thread is a fair one. The entry fees used to be "recommended", now the language accompanying them seem to make them required.

Since there are tourneys advertising right now that aren't sticking to this structure, what is the deal? There is no point in making rules that are not required to be followed. Just leave them as guidelines if that is the intent.

No Jerry, the goal is for you to come and NOT have to help out again. But thanks for the offer :D

Actually there is a new guy selling discs on the net and at the course and is about to start mini's in Carrollton again. He is going to start a course fund and I asked if he would help out at the tournament and he said yes, then I asked him if he could be my asst TD and he said yes. (btw, he has played the tournament before)

No Jerry, the goal is for you to come and NOT have to help out again. But thanks for the offer :D

Actually there is a new guy selling discs on the net and at the course and is about to start mini's in Carrollton again. He is going to start a course fund and I asked if he would help out at the tournament and he said yes, then I asked him if he could be my asst TD and he said yes. (btw, he has played the tournament before)



Good, but you know you can still count on me for assistance.

Sorry Jerry, as I was writing that I couldnt remember the thread, but I have found where this was discussed previously:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=476849&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=3&vc=1

These specifications in the sanctioning agreement are part of the contract between the PDGA and the tournament director. Parties to a contract can waive some of their requirements. They can also choose to overlook certain breaches of the contract if they are generally satisfied with how things are working out.

The PDGA staff and BoD understand that tournament directors are our most important resource. They don't want to drive productive tournament directors and regional leaders out of the organization with excessive interference in local matters. They do want there to be a brand identity associated with PDGA sanctioned events, in the same way that a Big Mac in San Diego is just like a Big Mac in Detroit. There is a tricky balance to be acheived between those two values sometimes. Most of the time the scales will tip towards the PDGA's economic best interests.

I think if a TD is running good events, turning in timely TD reports, paying his fees promptly, and not otherwise behaving like a horse's back end, a go-along-get-along relationship will prevail over a legalistic interpretation of the contract.

That is what I have expirienced so far with the PDGA office Bruce.

So, why make it a requirement instead of a recommendation if the expectation is that no one will pay it much attention ?

Dave should put the link up in a day or two that will allow you to download the new TD report for 2006. We've made it easier to see the gross and net entry fees instead of the way it has been done. We're talking about what we might allow TDs to deduct to get to a lower net entry fee than they were able to in the past, which will help. In addition, I put together a simple Excel payout calculator with the new tables that anyone can use. It might even work in a PDA but I'm not up to speed on requirements there. Look for them soon.

The documents could be rewritten to contain minimum requirements and maximum flexibility for the TDs. Is this issue boring already? Rewrite what you do; it's fundamental. Since all the rules should apply equally to everybody, why not rewrite the tournament format rules to reflect the kind of flexibility that is routinely accepted anyway? For instance, mixed groups first round. If that's ever allowed, it should always be allowed. Why would one TD get to do that and another not? And fees? Those should be guidelines. Let TDs do what they want. Like many before me have said, bad tournament value will be rewarded with sparse attendance and general grumbling.

Next thing you know they'll be banning the transvestites and Unitarians, then everybody'll be sorry. Ha.

Either we have standards or not. If you go to a Putt-Putt minigolf course, they have certain types of holes that minimize luck because they host tournaments. They removed their windmills and barns that opened and closed 35 years ago so they would have a more reproducible putting experience. You can go to all other kinds of minigolf courses for other experiences. But you know what to expect at Putt-Putt. Why shouldn't the PDGA events have some sort of expectations that are the same wherever you go?

It's just a matter of where you draw the line for standardization. McDonald's pricing varies somewhat based on inner city versus suburbs and different parts of the country. However, there are always at least some but not all of the same items on the 99 cent menu. But the formula for making the same product is the same everywhere.

These specifications in the sanctioning agreement are part of the contract between the PDGA and the tournament director. Parties to a contract can waive some of their requirements. They can also choose to overlook certain breaches of the contract if they are generally satisfied with how things are working out.

The PDGA staff and BoD understand that tournament directors are our most important resource. They don't want to drive productive tournament directors and regional leaders out of the organization with excessive interference in local matters. They do want there to be a brand identity associated with PDGA sanctioned events, in the same way that a Big Mac in San Diego is just like a Big Mac in Detroit. There is a tricky balance to be acheived between those two values sometimes. Most of the time the scales will tip towards the PDGA's economic best interests.

I think if a TD is running good events, turning in timely TD reports, paying his fees promptly, and not otherwise behaving like a horse's back end, a go-along-get-along relationship will prevail over a legalistic interpretation of the contract.



hear hear

Chuck,

So, what does this mean in terms of disciplinary action for non-complying TD's? I can tell you that I will probably be petitioning the PDGA for a different rate schedule. I would also like to suggest that the wording be changed to include a suggested range. Just my two cents worth.

You have already seen people suggesting the contract be negotiated.


Dave should put the link up in a day or two that will allow you to download the new TD report for 2006. We've made it easier to see the gross and net entry fees instead of the way it has been done. We're talking about what we might allow TDs to deduct to get to a lower net entry fee than they were able to in the past, which will help. In addition, I put together a simple Excel payout calculator with the new tables that anyone can use. It might even work in a PDA but I'm not up to speed on requirements there. Look for them soon.

Dave will have to speak to what actions will be taken. The new TD report will make the numbers easier to track. I believe the idea is simply for TDS to justify reason(s) to exceed the maximums should they desire and ask Dave in advance about unusual circumstances. You'll hear more about this because I suggested to Dave that the Competition Committee review elements related to this.

Thanks, also has the Open A Tier table been done away with?

Jerry


Dave will have to speak to what actions will be taken. The new TD report will make the numbers easier to track. I believe the idea is simply for TDS to justify reason(s) to exceed the maximums should they desire and ask Dave in advance about unusual circumstances. You'll hear more about this because I suggested to Dave that the Competition Committee review elements related to this.

Thanks, also has the Open A Tier table been done away with?




Not sure what you mean. We had a pro table in 2005 with two options, 40%, and 50% if you had sufficient added cash. The new flatter pro table adds another option for 45% to the 40% and 50% options.

People just seem to ignore the setting we are in. Despite some fancy statistics, people are dropping out. The PDGA acknowledged it and came up with a strategy. Now people are ********. I suppose it would be better to do nothing and let the rot continue.

By the way, I have no objections to allowing flexibility to a TD, IF the TD can demonstrate that they can meet a certain attendence/added money threshold.

ps. If the entry fee criteria is just some suggestion, like the payout scale, then count me in as bitcher from the opposite side. Suggested policies are a symptom of a weak organization.

James,

The fee schedule and the payout tables are not suggestions, they are requirements, however, if you look around you will see several tournaments that are not using the fee schedule. Also for the last several years, the TD/PDGA contract states you will use the PDGA payout tables and I know for a fact that quite a few tournaments have not been using them. Now either the PDGA requires you use them and applies disciplanary action if you don't, or they make them guidelines. The other option is to allow TD's to petition for a change for their particular tournament.

As for attendance dropiing off, if the TD is requiring to high an entry fee, then the TD will be the one to loose. The market will set the appropriate cost. I believe it would be very handy to have a set of guidelines for entry fees, but I believe they shoudl be guidelines, not requirements.

You state that people are dropping out, are they dropping out of tournaments due to high costs, PDGA due to high fees or a disportionate balance of goods receaved versus registeration cost, or are they dropping out of disc golf all together?

If they are dropping out of tournaments, I would suggest the major reason is we have more tournaments available than time to play them. If it is dropping out of the PDGA, I believe most of that is just a sign of the times. Quite a few organizations are loosing members.


People just seem to ignore the setting we are in. Despite some fancy statistics, people are dropping out. The PDGA acknowledged it and came up with a strategy. Now people are ********. I suppose it would be better to do nothing and let the rot continue.

By the way, I have no objections to allowing flexibility to a TD, IF the TD can demonstrate that they can meet a certain attendence/added money threshold.

ps. If the entry fee criteria is just some suggestion, like the payout scale, then count me in as bitcher from the opposite side. Suggested policies are a symptom of a weak organization.

In my mind, if there are many tournaments that are not using the fee schedule, or not using the payout schedules, then it can hardly be called a "requirement."

To be fair, we need to distinguish between a couple of things. There are apparently "requirements" that are not enforced. These include TD's not using the proper payout table, etc. Sometimes these appear to be waived by the PDGA and sometimes they appear to be ignored.

Then there are requirements that come in the form of options, such as the current payout tables.

Both cases, non-enforcement and optional guidelines, don't accomplish the intent of "branding" or ensuring that event meets a certain quality.

As for your point on letting the market decide. I can make a couple of arguments. First, I could argue that we have been embracing this strategy for many, many years and what have we got? Secondly, I would argue that a TD's motivations are not the same as the PDGA's. A "let the market decide" strategy might benefit the TD, but hurt the PDGA. So what is the incentive for the PDGA to suport such a strategy?

As an aside, there are probably issues that need to be addressed regarding TD compensation. However, I personally don't think higher entry fees is a healthy strategy to address this issue.

The new 2006 TD report template has been posted on the Tour information page for downloading. It has more lines for different course configurations, includes the new payout options and makes it easier for TDs to handle players who choose Trophy Only options.

James,

I am not asking for higher fees, at my last tournament several people commented that my entry fees were some of the lowest they had seen. And yet, my entry fees were higher than the new required entry fees. However, this is not my point. The question I asked is why is it a requirement, and by the way the payout tables are also a requirement, and yet there is no penalty for non-compliance. I think the required entry fees are too low, but I am off to read the lastest update.


In my mind, if there are many tournaments that are not using the fee schedule, or not using the payout schedules, then it can hardly be called a "requirement."

To be fair, we need to distinguish between a couple of things. There are apparently "requirements" that are not enforced. These include TD's not using the proper payout table, etc. Sometimes these appear to be waived by the PDGA and sometimes they appear to be ignored.

Then there are requirements that come in the form of options, such as the current payout tables.

Both cases, non-enforcement and optional guidelines, don't accomplish the intent of "branding" or ensuring that event meets a certain quality.

As for your point on letting the market decide. I can make a couple of arguments. First, I could argue that we have been embracing this strategy for many, many years and what have we got? Secondly, I would argue that a TD's motivations are not the same as the PDGA's. A "let the market decide" strategy might benefit the TD, but hurt the PDGA. So what is the incentive for the PDGA to suport such a strategy?

As an aside, there are probably issues that need to be addressed regarding TD compensation. However, I personally don't think higher entry fees is a healthy strategy to address this issue.

Yes, I recall your entry fees being quite fair, given that the event was of high quality. I am surprised that you exceeded the threshold.

As to why there is no penalty for non-compliance, I can only surmise that in typical PDGA fashion, they are operating from a position of weakness and are probably correctly scared to irritate any TDs. It is also one of their money streams after all. That seems to be one of their highest goals these days.

Yes, I recall your entry fees being quite fair, given that the event was of high quality. I am surprised that you exceeded the threshold.

As to why there is no penalty for non-compliance, I can only surmise that in typical PDGA fashion, they are operating from a position of weakness and are probably correctly scared to irritate any TDs. It is also one of their money streams after all. That seems to be one of their highest goals these days.



This makes perfect sense to me. Why cut your nose off despite your face? If there were more TD's stepping up in the areas of the events that you are questioning, the PDGA may get the stones to say..."sorry man but you havent met the criteria for a few years, were gonna give Mr. X a shot at TDing an event in your area......". But this strategy has flaws in it as well.....

The problem we're facing right now is that TDs are opting to go unsanctioned and the PDGA has no say in the matter.

Safe to say thats going to happen in all large DG demographic areas such as TX. How many of Himings events are sanctioned for the Tour de Disc Golf?

I don't think any of them are, but given the expected size of the turnouts and types of events that are planned, it wouldn't make anymore sense to sanction these than your weekely minis.

As for the Texas 7 series, I have looked at those numbers many times, and am still amazed that his series brings in 25-30 new players at every event. 25-30 players that have never played an organized event, not even a previous Texas 10. I am also suprized at how many of those names start popping up at PDGA events with PDGA numbers following that introduction to organized competition.

Some events just work better unsanctioned.

I think most events could be sanctioned and should be.

I think that just goes to show, the PDGA cant be everything to everyone. Some folks dont see a value in it, most of those are your weekend warriors that use DG the same as fishing and bowling, to drink.

I thought Dave D summed it up quite well on one of the last PDGA Radio spots.....some areas of the country are much father along than others and trying the same thing in those same respective markets dosent always work but there are simularities along the way.

There are a few reason the Texas 10/7's are not PDGA.

First off you need to realize that the finals has been an A-tier 2 times already, it was a B-tier the other year. (if I remember correctly)

Chris also runs several other C/B-tiers throughout the year. In fact, before this Tour d Disc Golf, I don't think he has run any non santioned events other than Texas 10's.

Remember, there is a lot of paperwork for PDGA tournaments. There is also standards that are suppose to be met.

And Gary has it VERY right, several tournament players in Texas played a Texas 10 as there 1st tournament.

On that note, MaceMan runs both santioned and non-santioned tournaments.

I think that just goes to show, the PDGA cant be everything to everyone. Some folks dont see a value in it, most of those are your weekend warriors that use DG the same as fishing and bowling, to drink.

I thought Dave D summed it up quite well on one of the last PDGA Radio spots.....some areas of the country are much father along than others and trying the same thing in those same respective markets dosent always work but there are simularities along the way.



Here in Michigan, each year it seems as though the ratio of nonsanctioned to sanctioned tournaments (that make anyone's calendar; not including weeklies and leagues) runs about 3-4:1. Personally, I think that's quite alright. It is a lot of work to run a sanctioned event.

The PDGA continues to set new records for the numbers of sanctioned events every single year. We'll likely go over 700 this year, with more in other countries than ever before as well.