I think all added cash should go to the Open divisions. (Men and Women.)

But I want an answer to this: what exactly is "added cash"?

If I run a tourney and I have to pay $350 for a park permit, $100 for sanctioning/insurance, $400 for player pack stuff, and $450 for lunches, how does that figure in to it? I will add all that up ($1300 in this example) and divide it by the number of players playing, and pull that amount from every entry to cover expenses.

When I sell tee-signs and fund-raiser discs.....is that money "added cash"? Personally, I don't think it is "added cash" until I get over $1300. Until then, it is just "covering expenses". I will then divide my fund-raiser funds by the number of players and add that money into the payouts for each divisions.

But that's how I do it. If I bring in $1300 to cover the $1300 in expenses, I do not claim to have "$1300 in added cash".

But I think this is exactly what some other TDs do.

So how do you define "added cash"? I think it should be defined, and that definition should be "money added to the purse after all expenses have been met." And then all of that should go to MPO and FPO.

So let's discuss just what "added cash" is.

How about when a sponsor requests that their contribution be used in a specific manner? What then? I.e. I want all of my added cash to go to Amateur Players Packages.

Sell that sponsor the players package disc and tee shirts and use the money (between cost and retail) to fatten the Open Women's and Men's divisions?

Somebody please quote me so Rhett can see my question...

How about when a sponsor requests that their contribution be used in a specific manner? What then? I.e. I want all of my added cash to go to Amateur Players Packages.

Sell that sponsor the players package disc and tee shirts and use the money (between cost and retail) to fatten the Open Women's and Men's divisions?

Somebody please quote me so Rhett can see my question...



hey, I can quote you without taking you off ignore! :D And thanks for the EIEIO sponsorship, Nick.

I don't know what question you are asking. I am asking "How do you define 'added cash'". If a sponsor agreed to buy the player packs, I would take the player pack costs out of the entry fee deductions and pay for the player pack stuff with that sponsor's money.

That would get me closer to WICC added cash. What I woudl really like is to get to where there is something that is WWCC.

Rhett - You pose an interesting semantic question.

Technically - the $1300 you raised is added cash - because without it - you'd be unable (more than likely) to meet the payback requirements of the tier sanctioning agreement. But at the same time - because you are paying legitimate event expenses - and providing amenities to all players (even if that amenity were insurance to use the course) - it isn't added "to the purse".

So I agree with you that on the other side of the coin - "added cash" which is to be added to the purse - is what is left after expenses are paid.

There may be a little crossover - as certain event expenses can be drawn from player entry fees and not count as part of the % payback (PDGA fees, local series /club fees, etc.). But once you have enough added funds into the event - that amount becomes pretty insignificant.

But once you have enough added funds into the event - that amount becomes pretty insignificant.


You are trivializing the question with that comment. NT events and Majors make event expenses insignificant, but I do not believe that is the case with the vast majority of PDGA tourneys.

I think all added cash should go to the Open divisions. (Men and Women.)

I like this idea...these two people are the event's Champions; everyone else is on some 'undercard'. I believe it's a boffo way to get more Women in the Open division. Perhaps into the sport, period. :cool:

...I think your definition of "added cash" is right on, too. You can't spend it until you have it.

Sorry Rhett - didn't mean to trivialize anything. Merely trying to say that certain "expenses" a TD is not "obligated" to pay back - as they don't count against what is considered to be 100% payback (according to the event sanctioning agreement). So event expenses like trophies, lunch, CTP's, and on and on DO need to be covered by the $$ you raise - after which - you can add to the purse. Player fees do not - and covering those is "technically" added cash. Either way - they are the same for all players - and most people understand that a portion of their entry fee pays for other things than the purse. I guess NOT understanding that is what makes some people feel they aren't getting a full return.

It's a trivial amount, but it has to be covered/come out of somewhere: The $$ in postage spent returning 'overflow' entrants, and people who couldn't/wouldn't stick around to pick up their cheque. Sorry if that's a thread drift, but it's an expense I'm having to address currently.

Anyone who has run a tournement knows that it is NOT an inexpensive propsition. I have spoken with Chris Himing about the model he used and I instituted something very similar to it. Since I ran a charity event this will difer from a lot of tournaments, but I told all cash sponsors that 40% of ther sponsorship money would go to the charity, 40% would go to 'added cash' and 20% would go to event costs. When it was all said and done the money remaining of the 20% went back into 'added cash'. This was then paid out directly.

Jerry


I think all added cash should go to the Open divisions. (Men and Women.)

But I want an answer to this: what exactly is "added cash"?

If I run a tourney and I have to pay $350 for a park permit, $100 for sanctioning/insurance, $400 for player pack stuff, and $450 for lunches, how does that figure in to it? I will add all that up ($1300 in this example) and divide it by the number of players playing, and pull that amount from every entry to cover expenses.

When I sell tee-signs and fund-raiser discs.....is that money "added cash"? Personally, I don't think it is "added cash" until I get over $1300. Until then, it is just "covering expenses". I will then divide my fund-raiser funds by the number of players and add that money into the payouts for each divisions.

But that's how I do it. If I bring in $1300 to cover the $1300 in expenses, I do not claim to have "$1300 in added cash".

But I think this is exactly what some other TDs do.

So how do you define "added cash"? I think it should be defined, and that definition should be "money added to the purse after all expenses have been met." And then all of that should go to MPO and FPO.

So let's discuss just what "added cash" is.

But I want an answer to this: what exactly is "added cash"?




Rhett, that's a tough question, and I have a quasi-related question or situation.

When I used to help run tournaments, the TD would go out and solicit "sponsorship" from local companies. If a company donated $100 cash, I personally expected that $100 to be added above and beyond the 100% payback of pro entry fees. HOWEVER, the TD often used it to cover expenses. This really kind of bugged me. And I was just a paltry little Am II worker bee at the time.

In other words, at the end of the day, the TD might have received $500 in cash donations, but the total Pro payout was only $200 over 100% of entry fees, with the other $300 going to expenses.

I guess it just seemed unethical to me to solicit sponsors for money, to advertise "100% payback plus added cash", and then use contributed money to cover expenses. Am I crazy? :confused: REMEMBER, I WAS NOT A PRO. IT WASN'T MY MONEY I WAS WORRIED ABOUT. THIS IS THE EXTREMELY RARE CASE OF A MESSAGE BOARD POSTER WHOSE OPINION DID NOT MATCH HIS SELF-INTEREST.

If you disagree, that's fine, because YOU'RE RHETT STROH DAMMIT!!!! Muaaa ha ha ha ha.

Hank,

In your scenario I would have no problem with the TD claiming to have had $200 in added cash. Tourney expenses have to come from somewhere. If there are $300 in expenses, then that $300 has to come from somewhere.

If the claim was $500 in added cash.....well, that is my question. :) Certainly an exgtra $500 was raised, and I guess it was cash and it was added to the tourney. But in my feeble mind I expect $500 added cash to mean $500 over the 100%.

I guess I am conflicted on this issue because the $500 is added cash to the tourney. But it is added to the tourney, not the payout. But if you wrassle the numbers you can show that it went to the payout. But that seems like number-wrasslin'...

The 'payback' can't get back to 100% until all the expenses are covered. That $300 [in your example][mighty low figure] has to come out of something/somewhere! It can't be added until one has it!! Am I just repeating myself?
<font size=-2>Am I just repeating myself?</font>

I like the way you and Rhett are concerned about "added cash" being a term that at times is used too liberally (never mind that i am a liberal and a PDGA am).

How would you like to see it defined Rhett? I like the approach you use for your tournaments as you've outlined above -- it has a degree of honor and integrity that is good for disc golf.

I also like the idea of letting TD's decide where added cash will go, but that they should be clear upfront about how it will be distributed.

"Added cash" and "cash added" are not the same thing!!

<font size=-3>...that's what this discussion is about...right?</font>

When I used to help run tournaments, the TD would go out and solicit "sponsorship" from local companies. If a company donated $100 cash, I personally expected that $100 to be added above and beyond the 100% payback of pro entry fees. HOWEVER, the TD often used it to cover expenses. This really kind of bugged me. And I was just a paltry little Am II worker bee at the time.

In other words, at the end of the day, the TD might have received $500 in cash donations, but the total Pro payout was only $200 over 100% of entry fees, with the other $300 going to expenses.

I guess it just seemed unethical to me to solicit sponsors for money, to advertise "100% payback plus added cash", and then use contributed money to cover expenses. Am I crazy? :confused:

Hank (and Rhett),

Not crazy, just confused.

I think you're overlooking an important distinction between general sponsorship, ad hoc sponsorship, and added cash.

By way of analogy, most religious congregations, be they churches, synagogues, mosques, or what have you (most non-profits, too, for that matter), have two (or more) giving streams: a general fund, which encompasses all the congregation's expenses, and special funds (benevolence, building, missions, scholarships, etc.) Donors may designate that all or part of their donation go to a particular special fund or funds, or leave it undesignated, in which case the donation is placed in the general fund. (In many, if not most, congregations, monies from the general fund may be directed to special funds.)

Designated donations MUST be put exclusively to the purpose for which they were given. (The obligation to do so is legal as well as moral.) So, for example, if a donor designates a donation for a church's soup kitchen and the church doesn't have a soup kitchen, the church has two, and only two, options: start a soup kitchen or return the donation. (Donors may also specify that a donation to the general fund may be used for anything EXCEPT x, y, or z: it's the equivalent of a line item veto.)

Tournament sponsorship may be viewed similarly: there is general sponsorship and there is ad hoc sponsorship. Ad hoc sponsorship monies is sacrosanct, and may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was given. General sponsorship monies (and merch) consist of all undesignated donations and may be used to meet any legitimate tournament expense, including the prize purse. Given these categories of sponsorship, "added cash" includes both monies specifically designated as prize money by the sponsor and general sponsorship dollars above and beyond what is needed to meet legitimate tournament expenses.

Hey felix,

I think your points are valid. However, I also think they are off-topic. :) They are much better suited to the Masters Cash thread.

My main point is that, in my example with $1300 in tourney expenses, I guess I could claim $1000 in "added cash" if I riased that much, and then have a payout that equalled $300 less than the sum of the adjusted entry fees.

I don't like that one bit. But it is kind of true.

In the example above, that $1,000 would be 'cash added' or 'general sponsorship $$' until it exceded expenses. "Added cash" is what exceeds the adjusted entry fees [entry $$'s less: PDGA fees; in our instance SoCal fees as well]. At least that's my view/understanding.

Okay Rhett, sorry I got off on a tangent there.

In answer to your question, to me, ADDED CASH means total dollars above and beyond 100% of entry fees.

So if there are 15 total pros (men,women,masters,etc.) and they each paid $100, the 100% payback would be $1500. But if the total payout is $2000, then I say there is $500 added cash.

This is maybe a little too simplistic, as it ignores pdga fees and whatnot, but I personally think that's pretty much what the consumer expects.

If a player sees "100% payback plus added cash", then I think that player takes the entry fee times the number of players to calculate WICC "the betting pool", and any payout above that is "added cash".

I think you asked what it meant to other people. That's what it means to me. :eek: :cool:

Now that I think of it, doesn't DGWN or GURU report an ADDED column? If so, isn't it pretty much the total purse minus the entry fees?

As such, if a tournament advertised $1000 ADDED CASH, but the total purse was only $200 over the entry fees (because they used $800 to cover expenses), I would call that shady at best.

{felix, the moral issue I have with the donations is that when a company donates cash to a tournament, it is my belief that they believe that it is being added specifically to the pro purse. That's why I have a problem with a TD taking $300 of tournament expenses out of the pro entry fees, then adding back $500 in cash donations, for a total of only $200 over the entry fees.}

Who is supposed to cover event expenses?
Not the Player
Not the Sponsors
Who?

Assuming the event is a pro-am tournament, usually there is plenty of profit on the amateurs' prizes to cover the tournament overhead.

Suppose you have 50 ams paying an average of $30 each and 20 pros paying an average of $40 each at a C-tier.

Income:
$800 Pro entry fees
$1500 Am entry fees
$0 Profit on cash sales of merch

Expenses:
$50 Sanctioning
$50 Insurance
$140 PDGA player fees
$750 Cost of $1500 worth of merch for prizes and CTPs
$120 Trophy discs - 12
$100-$350 Park use fee
$20 Printing and miscellaneous expenses

Profit: $20 to $270 depending on the park use fee.

In this scenario the TD paid 100% to all divisions without deducting for trophy costs or PDGA $2 fees.

I don't see why a TD would ever need to apply sponsor's cash to expenses nor why a TD would ever need to pay less than 100% without deductions. Maybe if the TD does not carry his own merch and has a really bad deal with the merch man, but there are two obvious solutions to that problem.

Added cash should be based strictly on cash value above total entry fee.

Including event expenses is a smoke screen of impenetrable confusion and it does not address the bottom line of which a true comparison can be easily demonstrated and understood.

If the total entry fee (not minus any event expenses, such as local, regional, PDGA, park, set up or staffing fees) is $9000 ($100 each for 90 Open players) and the Payout is $10,000, then the add cash is $1000.

There is an area in our PDGA event results form for expenses, to add some of them to the �added cash� calculation is extremely misleading (like saying a TD put in $2000 of working-hours and counting that as �added cash�).

Again, total entry fee minus total payout cash value (so as to include prize divisions) is the only really understandable and straightforward method to provide a comparable �added cash� index number for informational purposes. To add or complicate it any further is to at least invite suspicion of numbers play.

Other added value items should definitely be recognized, but they should not be included in the bottom line "Added Cash" calculation.

(Do I need to say IMO?)

This is what that TD could have done with that same C-tier, using the same assumptions. This is what the numbers look like if there is no added value for the ams:

Expenses:
$50 Sanctioning
$50 Insurance
$140 PDGA player fees
$537.50 Cost of of merch for prizes and CTPs, after deducting for trophies and $2 PDGA fees and paying ams only 85%
$120 Trophy discs - 12
$100-$350 Park use fee
$20 Printing and miscellaneous expenses

Last night I was looking for a tournament to take the girls to this weekend. I found one not so far away where the TD was advertising no added value for the amateurs. And amateurs are pre-registering in big numbers.

Amateurs must want to be abused.

I started the WVO minis to defray expenses we were incurring...like advertising in the DGWN... Because for the most part running an event was a losing proposition for the TD.

When we advertised this past year for "The Year of the Woman" we said we had "Added Cash" but then we went on the clarify that, we specifically said $2500 added to the PRO purse and $750 added to Womens pro purse.

Yes the main reason for added cash was to cover expenses so that we could give 100% of the entry fees back. It just so happened that the minis were received well and we covered our expenses ++.

My reasoning behind the minis was taken from the scarce sponsorship (added cash) we were NOT able to solicit due to the rurality of our venue.

But I then took that one step further and started sponsoring other tourneys with the minis by allowing the TD's to do what ever they wanted with 2 minis...many had raffles and were able to gain $100-$200 dollar of thier own "added cash" by way of The WVO sponsoring them, I did this to make TD aware of alternative methods of deriving cash for their Tourneys.

I think you guys need to quit discussing semantics and start thinking outside the box.

I believe it is our God given right the embellish our resumes...
Therefore, saying $2000 dollars in added cash when $1500 went to covering expenses is NOT out of line...It's called ADVERTISING! And is not false advertsing because if the expense money was not derived from "added cash" then it will come directly from the players fees and I'm NOT going to attract many people by advertising 90% of entry fees paid out!

Nuf' said...buy a f-ing mini already.

Love...Teescum #7002

As an int am myself, I do not want to "pad" the open or pro payout. I want my cash to go towards TD fees and the fabulous prizes we are all playing for. The pros and open players need to realize that we "undercard" players are actually giving them money, and should treat us a little better out on the courses. Got off topic, sorry. :p

The moral issue I have with the donations is that when a company donates cash to a cash to a tournament, it is my belief that they believe that it is being added specifically to the pro purse.

I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. The only reason for a donor to believe that to be the case would be if the donation was solicited specifically for the prize purse rather than for the tournament in general.

IMO, it's analogous to donations made to Doctors Without Borders folloing the tsunami: some of those donations were specifically earmarked by the donor for tsunami relief, others were simply made to DWB without designation or restriction of any kind. Donations marked "tsunami relief" and donations specifically solicited for tsuname relief can only be used for tsunami relief; donations not designated for tsunami relief (or another specific purpose) by the donor may be used for any purpose DWB deems legitimate.

Similar logic applies to tournament donations: monies donated and/or solicited specifically as prize money must be used exclusively as prize money; monies donated to or solicited for "the tournament" may be used for any legitimate tournament expense.

Assuming the event is a pro-am tournament...


Bruce, you are making a whole lot of assumptions after making this one. You are also clouding this issue with a side-bar.

BTW, I am running an upcoming event at a ball golf course, and part of the deal in getting the very successful business to shut down for a day of disc golf tourney-ing is that I am running the am payout though the pro shop and paying dollar-on-the-dollar. So in my tourney am payout is exactly the same as pro payout from the TDs perspective. A dollar of merch costs me a dollar, just like a dollar of cash costs me a dollar. It's not a horrible deal because I get a whole ball golf course for my tourney. I just don't have that revenue stream for expenses for this tourney.

For clarity, let's assume we are talking about a pro-only event so that there is no merchandise sale involved. How you want to classify merch sales in am events is another topic altogether.

I believe it is our God given right the embellish our resumes...
Therefore, saying $2000 dollars in added cash when $1500 went to covering expenses is NOT out of line...It's called ADVERTISING! And is not false advertsing because if the expense money was not derived from "added cash" then it will come directly from the players fees and I'm NOT going to attract many people by advertising 90% of entry fees paid out!



I could not disagree more with this. What you describe is a clear attempt to deceive potential participants?
Event expenses absolutely should be included in the overall value of the event, but to include them in the �Added Cash� you advertise as having been added to the purse of a specific division boarders on lying. Certainly it is false advertisement.

If one TD is actually paying out 150% on a $15,000 total purse, then that TD has added $5,000 in cash to the purse. Should this be the same thing as a TD charging the same entry fee and paying out only 125%, or 12,500 total purse ALSO saying in advertisements that he added $5,000 in �Added Cash�?

How then can a consumer ever hope to make an informed decision about which event to attend?

This needs to be standardized. It really does.

So are they taking the merch profit and $350 and you get nothing? You are working for free for a profit making enterprise and kicking in more money you've raised to cover PDGA fees, etc.? That's nuts. If Jon works himself into that kind of relationship with his Fly 18, I'm sure he'll understand when I slap him hard!

Either you are committed or you should be! :D

Uh-oh. I agree with Nick. :)

Bruce, you are making a whole lot of assumptions after making this one.

I'm just throwing out some hypotheticals so that the three readers who don't understand the process but want to can wade through the numbers and see how it works. I'm not talking about any event in particular. But I'm using real sanctioning fees, insurance fees, player fees, park fees, trophy costs and profit margins that apply to most TDs and most events.

Obviously every event has different values for the variables.

What we are doing with the park use fee this year is having the players pay it pro rata based on likely attendance, and treating it as a series fee. If we get better than expected attendance we will make it up to them. But I think it will be helpful for the players to know when we are in a park that wants $250 versus a park that is letting us use it for free.

And this would be a good time to thank the DGLO guys once again for letting us run our same-weekend event as a C-tier. Going all C-tier instead of am B-tier saves us about $300.

Bruce,

I like fun tournaments and I like the Emerald Isle course. I don't need to be paid to run this event, and this ball golf course is a successful business. They will be taking a big hit on what they normally make for a Saturday full of ball golfers, and I consider that very real sposorship that doesn't make it onto the books.

Are you suggesting that a business should just shut down for free to support a disc golf tourney? What would motivate a business to do that? This is not a course in a public park, after all. They are taking an income hit as it is.

I guess this is why there aren't too many other disc golf tourneys on ball golf courses.

How then can a consumer ever hope to make an informed decision about which event to attend?


If we cared one wit about the players as consumers we'd make TDs fill out the financial section of the TD report and we'd publish the TD reports on-line. Except for the rare TD who actually states on his website that it is an am-scam event [and that was especially refreshing to see that last night when I was looking at some potential tournaments!] the players have no way of knowing what events give good value to their division other than by word of mouth, which is often wildly inaccurate.

BTW, my hypothetical situation above with the $1300 expenses is a typical tourney in SoCal, not the EIEIO tourney which is more expensive to run. (Hence the "facility fee" portion.)

$1300 is actually too low. Trophies are about $300 if you do them right, so make the bottom line $1600.

$1600 in expenses that have to come from some where. Unless you want to offer lunch. Then it's more.

So you need to have enough ams to pay out about $3500 in merch in order to cover all the tourney expenses on their backs while still offering them 100% retail in payout. Unless you have other money coming in.

So are they taking the merch profit and $350 and you get nothing? You are working for free for a profit making enterprise and kicking in more money you've raised to cover PDGA fees, etc.? That's nuts. If Jon works himself into that kind of relationship with his Fly 18, I'm sure he'll understand when I slap him hard!

Either you are committed or you should be! :D



It would be a strange situation that would lead me to do that. I am available as a tournament coordinator for any venue that wants to hire me. I help run the IOS because I want good tournaments to play in. If a golf course already had a tournament coordinator who was doing all the work and they were just looking for a PDGA TD to do the PDGA stuff, I would consider donating my TD abilities. The IOS is a bunch of volunteers coming together to run good tournaments. We collect fees for some of the parks, but presumably that money goes back into the park in some way. I don't think I'd volunteer all that time if I knew that McTournaments, Inc. was making a big chunk of profit to give to their share holders. For some reason I don't think the golf course is letting them use the course out of the goodness of their hearts...if they are then they are strange business men. At best they are banking good will for current and potential disc golf customers. Most likely, they make a good buck off the disc golfers at the event. Either in round fees or food/beverage.

On topic, what the PDGA calls added cash and what the player thinks of as added cash are two different things.

If 25 pros pay you $40 each at a c-tier, and their three trophies cost you $75, the PDGA formula for your c-tier pro payout is:

$[(25 X 40) X .85] - (2 X 25) - 75 = $725.

They are thinking if you pay them $1000 you gave them their money back but the PDGA is letting you pay them $725. If you pay them $1000 you just added $275 over the PDGA minimum. And they are thinking you added nothing.

[I know Rhett already knows this. He is Rhett Stroh after all.]

I think that it is important that players understand this. I think it is important that when TDs intend to do minimal C-tier payouts that they let the players know that the event is a fund raiser for whatever it is a fundraiser for.

In Bruce's example, you have ($25x40x0.15) = $150 dollars avaliable for tourney expenses.

Or as he implies "fundraiser money for whoever you are raising funds for."

If you bought insurance and sanctioning, that's $100 of the $150 windfall, leaving a bonanza of $50 to pay for park permits, signage, entry flyer printings, etc etc.

I point htis out because Bruce always tries to make it sound like people are raking in money hand over fist if they don't run tourneys exactly like he does.

How then can a consumer ever hope to make an informed decision about which event to attend?


If we cared one wit about the players as consumers we'd make TDs fill out the financial section of the TD report and we'd publish the TD reports on-line. Except for the rare TD who actually states on his website that it is an am-scam event [and that was especially refreshing to see that last night when I was looking at some potential tournaments!] the players have no way of knowing what events give good value to their division other than by word of mouth, which is often wildly inaccurate.



I doubt that report if published would do more than confuse the average hacker. What would be clear as day is:

Total Entry Fee In / Total Cash and Cash Value Awards Out

Let the event amenities speak for themselves. The bottom line is what folks are after in making a decision based on "Added Cash".

Event Total Value would be a useful stat too, which would include all event expenses, but again, most folks I know can pretty easily calculate in their heads what the total entry fees added up to and then what the total payouts (cash or cash value) were and figure out if there was any "Added Cash".

Perhaps they should consider all the work-hours and expenses incurred by the TD, but truth is you're lucky if they don't ask you the tee time 40 times when it was posted on the flyer, in the program, and you are wearing it on your tee shirt in big bold letters...

I point htis out because Bruce always tries to make it sound like people are raking in money hand over fist if they don't run tourneys exactly like he does.



Oh, you noticed that did you...?

I point this out because Bruce always tries to make it sound like people are raking in money hand over fist if they don't run tourneys exactly like he does.



Oh, you noticed that did you...?

I think it is more the rock and the pack of dogs phenomenon that Jon mentions from time to time. I think you are saying more about your feelings than my intentions. And I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

I NEED other TDs to run am-scam events so amateurs will have some reason to play the well-run events on the so-so courses we have in the NW Chicago suburbs. I need amateurs to know that there is not a $7 deduction for series fees or an am->pro money shift at events we run. And if other TDs want to do that, well I hope they run tournaments close by and not in Texas or Florida.

If every TD did what Jon, Brett and I do, we'd be out of business! Please, all of you, don't change a thing, except maybe in states I might visit on a winter vacation next year.

OK, this is all opinions...We all have one (you know the rest of the statement)

As far as including working hours by the TD and Staff...

Tony and I start working on the next WVO about two weeks BEFORE the current years Tourney has even happened.
WE put in countless hours, heck I don't even remember how to play the game anymore as I spend so much time trying to make the WVO an event to remember.

Until we get the PDGA to help us in the "added cash" arena
we have to figure it out for ourselves.

I bust my butt for the love of the game, not to try to impress Rhett,Nick, Bruce, Jon, etc....we have this forum in which to try to share ideas for making the sport of disc golf more prominent.

I believe that you should lead, follow or get the f- out of the way!

In most cases the WVO leads...for instance dropping the Womens fees by half.

Don't think for a minute that we don't listen....we take what is said with a grain of salt and formulate our own ideas of how things should be.

If for a minute, you think that we are LYING or exhibiting false advertising...Why did the WVO #11 receive the "event of the year" award from MADC?

Sorry for the pontificatio, but whether you all agree or not
Thats our story and we are sticking to it.

Currently I have made over 400 minis and NONE of that money has gone in to MY pocket!

where is all this going?

I point this out because Bruce always tries to make it sound like people are raking in money hand over fist if they don't run tourneys exactly like he does.



Oh, you noticed that did you...?

I think it is more the rock and the pack of dogs phenomenon that Jon mentions from time to time. I think you are saying more about your feelings than my intentions. And I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

I NEED other TDs to run am-scam events so amateurs will have some reason to play the well-run events on the so-so courses we have in the NW Chicago suburbs. I need amateurs to know that there is not a $7 deduction for series fees or an am->pro money shift at events we run. And if other TDs want to do that, well I hope they run tournaments close by and not in Texas or Florida.

If every TD did what Jon, Brett and I do, we'd be out of business! Please, all of you, don't change a thing, except maybe in states I might visit on a winter vacation next year.



GOOD GRIEF!!! That was your head to the west on the horizon!

Um. What are you talking about? Is there something you want to tell us?

Did you think I was accusing you of something?

Relax, if I were it would come like a swift boot in the groin.

Just ask Bruce and Rhett. ;)

I hope this isn't going the same way as the par discussions.

Doesn't total entry in divided by total payout out give a number for "Added Cash" that everyone can understand?

Then let "Event Value" include all the stuff like pdga, regional and local fees, lunch, trophies, TD and volunteer labor, etc..

I wouldn't understand using the "total entry" line in a most-basic equation for 'added cash'....sometimes $5 [+regional] is taken out; sometimes it's $10 [tier-B]. Using a figure after the deduction of those fees I would understand. Then it wouldn't be 'total entry' anymore. Not totally!

...then, I'm not everyone, either. :D

Doesn't total entry in divided by total payout out give a number for "Added Cash" that everyone can understand?



Yes it would Nick. And that is why I bring this topic up.

And because I do not believe that is how everyone does it.

Just like almost everything in life, it's all in how you look at it. It can be argued, without a lapse in logic, that if someone raises $5000 in cash for a tournament and they put all $5000 into the tournament that the tournament has "$5000 in added cash." If the tourney expenses turn out to be $2000, then you would have $3000 over and above the adjusted entry fees.

So it's all in how you define it, and it is not currently defined.

I'd like to see it defined like how you have defined it.

So you don't understand 10 players pay $100 each, making $1000 in entry fees and the payouts add up to $1500 making $500 in Added Cash?

Can you describe the difficulty you have with such math, Steve?

So you don't understand 10 players pay $100 each, making $1000 in entry fees and the payouts add up to $1500 making $500 in Added Cash?

Can you describe the difficulty you have with such math, Steve?


The difficulty is not Steve's. The difficulty is when someone advertises $5000 in added cash because they raised $5000 in cash and added it all to the tourney general fund because it was cash and it was $5000 and it was added. The difficulty is when the tourney expenses were $2000. In that scenario your calculation would come out to $3000 in added cash. So the real difficulty is when someone says they have $5000 in added cash in that scenario.

So you don't understand 10 players pay $100 each, making $1000 in entry fees and the payouts add up to $1500 making $500 in Added Cash?

Can you describe the difficulty you have with such math, Steve?



Out of that $1000 entry fees, only $900-$950 is available, that's the difficulty.

Doesn't total entry in divided by total payout out give a number for "Added Cash" that everyone can understand?



Yes it would Nick. And that is why I bring this topic up...I'd like to see it defined like how you have defined it.



Wouldn't total payout divided by total entry be a handier quotient? > 1.00 = added cash.

Wouldn't total payout divided by total entry be a handier quotient? > 1.00 = added cash.



Touch�!

I think that "Added Cash" should be defined as any money actually added to pro payouts above the total entry fees - PDGA + regional fees. It's the easiest way to define things.

For example, in the B-Tier I'm throwing, I am advertising $1000+ added cash at the moment. I expect that after I deduct the $3/player PDGA fee and $1/Colorado Disc Sport Assoc'n fee I will add at minimum $1000 on top of that. I expect to add more (Including more than $300 added cash just for pro women) but I need to start getting flyers out now and more sponsorships will come in the next couple months. So...to determine the pro money (let's assume just Open Men for simplicities sake) take $63 fee - $4 PDGA&regional fees = $59/player. $59 times X discgolfers +$1000 = Payout. Plug into TD report and payouts are calculated.

Then if I have more sponsorship money, I can use it to pay tournament costs and beef up players packs and Am payouts. If I had another $700 used for the above, I would not say "$1700 Added Cash" because it's not really added "directly" to payouts and is misleading. I do think everyone who signs up early should get a killer player's pack and chances at cool CTPs (At least two 2005 Champ Rocs this year), Ring-of-Fire and other prizes and a deep am payout. People who sign up later and make my job more difficult will not get a full players pack (but will get a tourney disc), subsidize the am payouts because I did not have to spend as much on them per player with a player's package. This sounds a bit harsh but I would hate to have 80 Packs and 60 entrants. I'd rather have it be the other way around. Plus, it makes my life easier planning-wise so I offer Packs as in incentive to sign up early.

Gosh...it's gotten a bit rambly up there. Better head to bed. Anyway...Added Cash should be what's actually added directly to the pro purse (and/or AM purse) IMH&TiredO.

-Max

I think that "Added Cash" should be defined as any money actually added to pro payouts above the total entry fees - PDGA + regional fees. It's the easiest way to define things.


I think the Kight-Stroh paradigm is the easiest to define, but Max' more accurately defines the concept, and he's illustrating what I was talkinabout. :p

...I expect to add more (Including more than $300 added cash just for pro women)

Salud! :)

I think the Kight-Stroh paradigm is the easiest to define, but Max' more accurately defines the concept, and he's illustrating what I was talkinabout. :p



It's the same thing, slo!!!!!!!

Except Nick didn't bother to say "adjusted entry fee" where I did.

So you don't understand 10 players pay $100 each, making $1000 in entry fees and the payouts add up to $1500 making $500 in Added Cash?

Can you describe the difficulty you have with such math, Steve?


The difficulty is not Steve's. The difficulty is when someone advertises $5000 in added cash because they raised $5000 in cash and added it all to the tourney general fund because it was cash and it was $5000 and it was added. The difficulty is when the tourney expenses were $2000. In that scenario your calculation would come out to $3000 in added cash. So the real difficulty is when someone says they have $5000 in added cash in that scenario.



I get what you are saying Rhett and Steve, what I am saying is that the advertised "Added Cash" should be $3000 in that example. Steve and Rhett, you know as well as I that the value added to such events is way above even the $5000 in cash and work invested by the TD and volunteers; the thing is "I know" that when players are standing around during awards ceremony they have (most anyway) managed to do the simple math of number of people in their division times entry fee and then able to add up the cash value (hence all the am rip off threads) or cash being awarded in payouts. If there is a major discrepancy, and a number was floated out by the TD for "Added Cash" (like $5000) and it is plainly obvious that the payouts did not approach that kind of "Added Cash" that they will have issues with what is going on.

I have seen this even on far smaller scale events.

Bottom line, the way we have it now seems to set TDs up to set inappropriate expectations. If we can set a standard that can be "plainly" and "clearly" met, then we can avoid all the static from folks that do not understand what is REALLY involved in running an event.

What I propose is that 2 main stats be used in advertising events:

1) Added Cash (per division)
2) Overall Event Value (which includes the kitchen sink; and I have no issue with TDs including the full and accurate amount of their "work" hours in this calculation. i.e you are a TD and you earn $25/hr in the real world and you do 80hrs of work on organizing and running the event, then you should put that $2000.00 into the "Event Value" stat.

The confusion and oft ill will arises when those two numbers commingle

Flyer Terminology:
:confused: "Added Cash" or "Added Cash to Event": Additional cash may or may not end up in the payouts of any division
;) "Added Cash to Purse": Specific $X amount added to Pro division(s) above entry fees. Still doesn't mean actual payout will end up being equal to base entry fees plus $X if payout guidelines such as C-tiers only require 75% of entry fee payouts. TD could still pay 100% and legitimately say $X were added to the purse.
:D"Payout $X Added to Base Entry Fees": This may be the only phrasing where TD is locked in and players can assume the payout will be (number of players x base entry fee) + $X.

Flyer Terminology:
:confused: "Added Cash" or "Added Cash to Event": Additional cash may or may not end up in the payouts of any division
;) "Added Cash to Purse": Specific $X amount added to Pro division(s) above entry fees. Still doesn't mean actual payout will end up being equal to base entry fees plus $X if payout guidelines such as C-tiers only require 75% of entry fee payouts. TD could still pay 100% and legitimately say $X were added to the purse.
:D"Payout $X Added to Base Entry Fees": This may be the only phrasing where TD is locked in and players can assume the payout will be (number of players x base entry fee) + $X.



I think a lot of the confusion starts with the PDGA permitting the phrase "100% Payout" when 25% of total entry fees can be deducted. It is just double talk, and everyone who can do addition and subtraction can figure it out on the fly, hence all the suspicions of shady money deals (even if the TD is in 100% compliance with PDGA guidelines).

Total Payout Out - Total Entry Fees In = Added Cash
Total Event Value In = Event Value

These are things everyone can understand (if standards are followed, and in the case of Added Cash, if they don't EVERYONE will know rather quickly and belly aching will follow shortly thereafter...).

I'm not sure where you see 100% payout mean 75% payout? If a C-tier Open division has $1000 in entry fees after PDGA player fees deducted, and they pay out $750, that's 75% payout. It might be called proper or appropriate payout or meeting the payout guidelines but certainly it's not called 100% payout.

Let's assume a few things.
1. You run good tournaments and you will have at least 80% of the spots filled. (Your course will accommodate 90 players, so at least 72 will be there.)
2. You want to make a significant contribution to a local charity.
3. You are running a "Pro only" tournament and want to "Add" cash to the pro purses in all divisions.
4. You are comfortable and capable of raising cash sponsorships in your community.

The first thing to do is to advertise your "Event Entry Fee" , up front, as:

Divisional Entry Fee + PDGA Fee + Tournament Fee, where

Divisional Entry Fee is the current advertised fee ($40, $75, $100)
PDGA fee is just that ($2, $3, $4, etc), and
Tournament Fee is each player's share of park fees, sanctioning fees, and insurance, based on an 80% sold out tourney.

Thus a player's "Event Entry Fee" might be $75 + $3 + $7, or $85.

The $75 Divisional Entry Fee goes 100% directly to the purse of that player's division, and the other fees are plainly designated to go to the expense areas described.

When you solicit sponsorship cash, you tell the sponsor that 40% of their sponsorship money goes to the purse, 40% to the tournament's charity, and 20% to tournament administration.

When you raise $5000 in cash sponsorships, you would have $1000 to cover tournament expenses, would make a $2000 contribution to the charity, and would ADD cash to the purse in the amount of $2000. If there were 36 MPO's, 18 FPO's, 9 MPM's and 9 MPG's, there would be $1000 added to MPO, $500 to FPO, and $250 added to each of MPM and MPG. If the pro divisions' entry fee was $75, then the MPO total purse would be ($75 x 36) + $1000 or $3700. FPO would have a total of $1850, and MPM's and MPG's would have $1175 each. Each of these divisions would have a 137% payout, based on the divisional entry fees.

Since the only part of the tournament budget that players pay attention to or even care about is the payout, they see "Added" Cash as being that which supplements the payout. They don't see or care about charity or tournament expenses (other than expecting it to be done).

In this hypothetical tournament, you can safely say that $2000 was ADDED to the purse(s). You can safely say that you paid 137% of the entry fees back to the winners. You can get the added boost of community involvement by supporting a charity. And you can cover your expenses not "donate" to your own event. Everyone wins.

I think as all these numbers flying around atest, it can be easily confusing to figure out all of those things for Event Value.

Added Cash is the difference between Total Entry Fee and Payout. This number can be as low as -25% at C-Tiers or well over 100% depending on the amount of sponsorship raised by the organizers of the event.

Projected Added Cash, meaning the one posted on flyers, should attempt to account for the deductions of National, Regional, Local, Parks, and other event expenses so that when a player anywhere in the world sees it they get an accurate read of the amount that is expected to be added to the payouts.

Projected Event Value can be a useful tool for prospective participants too. Particularly if the TD lists all of the value added event activities and benefits (i.e. players packages(pro), meals, ctps, spectator raffles, gift certificates, etc.).

* Divisional Entry Fee
* Event Entry Fee

These two terms are new to me, but they make plain sense. Are they in current use; will they become commonplace?

Idahojon: "Since the only part of the tournament budget that players pay attention to or even care about is the payout, they see "Added" Cash as being that which supplements the payout. They don't see or care about charity or tournament expenses (other than expecting it to be done)."

Nail; head...bingo, we have a winner! :cool:

Nick: "Added Cash is the difference between Total Entry Fee and Payout."

If this becomes the accepted method, so be it; it's easy/simple, but I have to wonder out loud, why wouldn't it be adjusted entry fees? It seems that organizational event fees are considered part of the payout ["value"] in the "total" reckoning. Out here, for a tier-B, that amount can be $10 per person...it adds up! :eek:

Note: Using payout - 'adjusted' results in a slightly higher sum for "added cash".

If this becomes the accepted method, so be it; it's easy/simple, but I have to wonder out loud, why wouldn't it be adjusted entry fees? It seems that organizational event fees are considered part of the payout ["value"] in the "total" reckoning. Out here, for a tier-B, that amount can be $10 per person...it adds up!

Note: Using payout - 'adjusted' results in a slightly higher sum for "added cash".



I hear you Steve, but to do so would only confuse things. The place to inform participants about such things is Event Value. All we can expect is that they know what goes in and what comes out, trying to subtract a variable number would be too much to expect IMO.

If a TD is concerned that all of their sponsorship will be eaten up by event expenses and nothing will be left in the way of "Added Cash", they could advertise the amount of "Event Value" rather than a deceptive or misleading "Added Cash" amount which would likely just cause them headaches later anyway as folks did the simple math.

I was discussing this with Joe Mela on the way back from the VTI, so I can include the phrase "Top Pros" in my description here; Top Pros don't care if most raised cash goes to the event expenses, they just want the organizers to be up front about it. When you set an expectation (like $5000 Added Cash) and then clearly don't meet it, that is when all of the trouble happens. And to a degree it is understandable.

Adjusted entry fee is used by the PDGA to figure payout percentages.

Gross entry fee is what is used by the players unless the other numbers are posted prominently near the payout charts.

Added cash should only be advertised for funds directly added to payout (but should be based on entry fees - PDGA and series fees). I think one thing that should be posted is the amount of entry fees that go toward payout.

Like:
AM entry $20 + PDGA fee $3.00 + series fees $2.00 + Charity donation $5.00 = Total $30.00 (optional Ace Pot + $5.00).

So what things are included in "event value?"

Sanctioning fees? Insurance? Per player PDGA Fees? Local/Regional series fees? Park rental/use fees? Printing? Telephone? New chains for a few of the baskets? Yellow rope? Lunch for the staff because they can't get away between rounds? Trophies, even if the pro's don't care about anything but cash? Any of that stuff, the players don't really care about, since they expect it to just appear.

All that matters to players is how much they pay, and how much they get back. If the park fee is $200, that is the TD's problem, not the players'. Or so they think.

Understanding that you often don't have a handle on either income or expenses until the day of the event (or sometimes after), it is hard to advertise a hard "Added Cash" figure in advance. But by basing your day-of-event payout announcement on only that part of the entry fee (the Divisionl Entry Fee) that went into the purse and not deducting this and deducting that, the players can have true expectations about what comes back to them. The "event value" only means something to the PDGA and your local CVB. It's a useful marketing figure, but could also have players wondering where the difference between payout and event value went.

When TD's, as a whole, start treating tournaments as business ventures, not only will they be happier with positive outcomes due to expenses being covered, but the players will get better payouts (both cash-wise and percentage-wise), and local charities might find a new revenue source.

Certain things are expected to be included at all events.

All PDGA Fees, Series Fees, and a fully prepared course.

Players Packs are deducted from payout by PDGA guidelines.

I don't think the players expect for overhead to come out of entry fees. That should be covered by sponsorship or "profit" from payout and merch sales.

Anything added to the event for the benefit of all players regardless of performance would be an added value item.

Out here, for a tier-B, that amount can be $10 per person...it adds up! :eek:



B-Tier PDGA Fee: $3
SoCal Fee: $2

Total: $5

B-tier sanctioning: $75
100 players? 90 players? 72 players? Let's say a buck each.

Total: $6

Where is the number "$10" coming from?

So what things are included in "event value?"


Ummm...Event Value is defined by the PDGA, Mr. BOD Member. :)


It is

(Payout+trophy cost+retail player packs+CTPs)/Adjusted Entry Fees


You are not supposed to include ring-of-fire prizes, ace-pools, or meals.

The difference between a CTP and a ring of fire, I assume, is that a PDGA defined CTP uses a competitively thrown disc to establish the winner.

Out here, for a tier-B, that amount can be $10 per person...it adds up! :eek:


B-Tier PDGA Fee: $3
SoCal Fee: $2
Non-PDGA member fee: $5

Total: $10

...not even including the sanctioning fee!!!
...that would "take it to eleven...that's one more, innit?" :D

The $5 thing is a temp membership in the PDGA and is not part of the entry fee.

SoCal makes that part extremely confusing by adding an extra $10 to the entry fee and then having people deduct $5 if they are current. While this tactic makes check-in a lot easier*, it really confuses the payout thing because the advertised entry fee is not the entry fee at all.

<font size="-5">* It's easier when you give the players $5 back at check in when they didn't bother to read the entry form than it is to ask them for $5 more because they didn't read the entry form.</font>

So are we in agreement that in an effort to make "Added Cash" a simple universal standard that can be understood by just about anyone, we support the proposal of having it be:

Added Cash to purse beyond total entry fees per division.

This covers prize divisions where TDs can use wholesale vs retail costs.

*If a TD wants to use an "Adjusted Entry Fee" they need to specifically detail what is being deducted, such as:

$3 per player for PDGA
$1 per player for Local Club
$1 per player for Regional Series
$4 per player for other event expenses (consult TD for details)

If there are 100 players the above fees add up to $900! The idea, IMO, is for the TD to secure enough sponsorship to cover those expenses so that all that need be said is that the event paid out 100% of full entry fees per division plus had ADDED CASH of $1000 (or whatever it ends up being combined cash to pros and prize value to prizers).

Is this a standard you could support?

The $5 thing is a temp membership in the PDGA and is not part of the entry fee. Not a fee, but still a part of the "Total entry fee" figure.

When the entry fee does NOT equal the amount on the check paid by the player, that alone is confusing, and reason enough to see "Total payout-Total entry fee" is perfectly suitable. K.I.S.S., or words to that effect.

Then all tournaments should be PDGA members only.

A $50 entry fee with one person and a purse of $50 is a 100% payout.

A $50 entry fee for a non-member costs them $55. With a payout of $50 it is only a 90.9% payout.

You will be forcing added cash to be used to pay for people's temporary memberships instead of being distributed via the purse. That is BS.

I made my previous post before reading Nick's latest, but that's entirely digestable. I would vote 'yea'.

...tantamount to saying, not 100% of sponsors' contributions are 'added cash'. It has to be available [added to payout] before it is part of "added cash".

I certainly don't accept the PDGA members-only position...are you saying the 'Total-Total' method is flawed, or some other comment/stance I made? Please clarify.

So are we in agreement that in an effort to make "Added Cash" a simple universal standard that can be understood by just about anyone, we support the proposal of having it be:

Added Cash to purse beyond total entry fees per division.





Stop right there. I support that.

What I do NOT support is making the PDGA fees, Local Club fees, Regional Series fees, Sanctioning fees, Insurance fees, Park rental fees the sole responsibility of the TD to raise. Those things are all part of playing in the tournament. They are the responsibility of each and every player and should be covered by the players. Assuming a C-Tier with 90 players, $2 PDGA, $1 Regional, $1 Local, $4 sanctioning and insurance, and $2 park fee, the $900 is passed on by the TD to the various agencies and the Divisional Entry Fees go 100% to the purses.

A tournament should be nothing less than at least a break even proposition for the TD. By having the players be responsible for the various required fees, the TD's primary investment is time and energy, not cash. The payout is 100%, the fees are paid, everyone has a good time, and we meet again next year to do it again.

Now, if the TD wants to send out glossy fliers advertising the event, put neon pink flags down the 8th fairway, supply caviar and root beer to the spotters, and provide everyone in the field with an INNColor disc with his family Christmas photo, or any other amenity, then he needs to raise sponsorship dollars to cover it. If he wants to make a contribution to the local chapter of the Decrepit Sailor's Home, he needs to raise sponsorship dollars to cover it. And, most important to this discussion, if he wants to put an additional $2,000 in ADDED CASH in the purses of the various divisions, he needs to raise sponsorship dollars to cover it.

I think TDs ought to base payouts on the total of entry fees, minus the nessary costs of: park fees, security and providing meals and merch for the staff...all of which are currently allowed for by current PDGA guidelines.

$2,000 added cash to the event ought to mean just that. It should be added to the total payout of the tournament purse or Pro purse (if specified.)

Realistically folks, there can be a ton of costs associated with putting on a big event and doing it well. Those are legitimate costs associated with running a tourney...ice for cold water jugs, one or two carts dedicated to just running ice and water out to 2-3 holes per course all day, lunches for staffers, full player packs for the staffers, (and you better say "thanks" to the next ones you see - because they're working for peanuts!)

Stuff that Jon speaks about could be considered viable tournament expenses however without ever needing to be a reason to deduct from reasonable expenses needed to host a tournament. Is ice on a Texas course in September/October a reasonable "necessary" cost? You bet it is! Is paying for $10,000 for radio advertising spots a necessary cost? No - not one the players should have to bear. Is it a legitimate cost for a tournament though? Who is to say? Perhaps they have a scheme to sell concession-stuff to spectators all day. Charitible causes? TDs should be up front about per player fees that are being taken out of a typical entry fee calculation...every TD I've seen is very up-front about that. Greens fees on Pay-to-play course? Yep - as long as it is up front.

I'd like to see more TDs posting their financials along with their payouts. I think it would give players more of a sense of appreciation with how much stuff is involved in running a big tourney.

It is very difficult when you're running a "break-even" event like States where after all income is generated by the tournament (either via Am-payout or by concession sales) to know in advance what your total "added cash" is going to be. So much can affect the profitability of a tournament too - like weather!

I'm betting that it costs us nearly $5,000 just to get off the ground for States every year...and we have to hope and pray that folks will show up for it so that we can recover the costs.

Did you read my post, slo?

If you go by "total cost to play the tourney" then non-PDGA members pay $5 more than PDGA members. Assuming the ideal 100% payout, you will have to pay out $5 more for every non-member than member. That $5 does not go to you, it goes to the PDGA. So you the TD have to come up with another $5 for every non-member.

And that is a bunch of BS.

So scrap the "total cost to play" approach or go to members only.

Larry and Jon,

The challenge with subtracting even the things currently allowed by the PDGA from the entry fees, is that players do not care about that. I agree that they should, and they should be aware of it, but that is not likely to happen. What they notice is that they paid $100, know that there were 20 players in their division, payout was only $1500 yet there was $500 "Added Cash" listed for that division on the event flyer.

Now we can later tell using easy math that the payout really was only 75% Total Entry Fees and that there was $0.00 in �Added Cash�. The best way to show that that money did not just go into the TDs pocket or vanish is to:

A) Realize that you will likely, even with added sponsorship, not be able to provide "Actual" 100% return of Entry Fees in Purse and advertise it.
B) Explain in general on the flyer the amount of fees associated with the event.

Most folks I know will accept this sort of explanation far better than they do standing around calculating the lost Entry Fees and Added Cash during Awards Ceremonies and rides home, when it is just all too obvious that what was advertised was not delivered (even with PDGA reporting allowances).

The best thing is to predict those expenses and adjust your payout projections and perhaps under promise and over achieve on them. Folks just want to get the straight poop on this, and most are clever enough to realize when they have not.

If one event like the one above lists �100% Payout Plus $500 in Added Cash� in their event flyer and promotional info (DGWN, DGM, etc.) while another more accurately, in my opinion, lists �75% Payout�, then potential participants judging which event they are going to play in will be basing there decision on incomplete and incomparable info.

The standard allowed by the PDGA is confusing considering the amount of fees can vary greatly from event to event, particularly park fees for closing the course.

The perfect place to list all of these fees as well as all other event expenses and added event value (things that players and event participants should be made more aware of, so they appreciate ALL the work and effort that goes into the event by the TD and volunteers) is the �Event Value� number.

Expecting folks to know and calculate all of those variable expenses (the ones permitted by the sanctioning agreement and Event Results Form) into an adjusted �Total Entry Fee� and then what the �Added Cash� actually was on top of that, I think is unrealistic as well as clearly potentially misleading, almost purposefully nebulous. Particularly in light of the fact that they are still going to do the �Easy� math and see that less than 100% return of entry fee in purse and $0 in added cash actually made it into the payouts, anyway.

I would fully agree with you guys if the event expenses allowed by the PDGA were not variable, but they are, and as long as they are, to use them in advertising and claims of higher than actual payout amounts is misleading at best. Certainly as a standard by which events can be compared, it is less all-inclusive and accurate than Total Entry Fee in Total Purse Out, isn�t it?

Regards,
Nick Kight

ok, i'm not the most experienced TD, by a longshot. But, when i read that i need to pay out 100% of entry fees or 125% of entry fees, that's what i do. added cash is cash added directly to the payouts, after expenses and over the 100% payout. of course this is from a Td who ate like 800$ in fees to hold an event last year. i have recouped about half that by using the cfr discs as am payouts at other events at that course. i hope to make it all back after the last of the discs are gone,( thanks to innovas generous support! ) I think the best practice is to estimate your expenses and only advertise added cash as that cash available for payouts AFTER expenses are paid. it is the only fair and non-confusing method IMHO. after all, we have all been at an event calculating in our head why the payout seems to be light. i think the bottom line though, is that players won't come back to the places that don't pay fairly, and they will come back to the places that do. hopefully everyone was happy with the payout at the picnic last year and will come back this year!

So what's wrong with being UP FRONT and stating clearly on the entry form what the breakdown is? There's nothing at all misleading about saying that:

"Included in your Event Entry Fee is $10 in tournament related fees that include a $3 PDGA Player Fee, a $2 Local Club Fee, a $2 Regional Series Fee, and a $3 Park Use Fee. These amounts are paid by all players, regardless of division, and will not be used in calculating payouts. Divisional Entry Fees, along with Added Cash (if any) will be used to determine payout."

That same statement can be made on the payout posting that is made before the last round, at the players meeting, and before the awards are made. That way everyone has been informed and shouldn't be using that in their mental calculations. They also understand that there are certain player-related expenses that they are responsible for as part of the tournament experience.

Using the logic that "people are mentally calculating and so you have to cover those costs so they won't question you" is like saying a merchant has to pay the sales tax and delivery charges on your purchase because it isn't included in the price of the item. It's right there in the Sanctioning Agreement that those costs are deducted before payout calculation, and all TD's know that, so why shouldn't the players also be aware of it and figure it out like it is?

everyone already knows about those fees and is probably taking them into account when they do their "mental calculations". that isn't what i was talking about jon. i was more referring to the 2000.00 in added cash on the flyer kind of thing. the term added cash in my mind refers to money that is paid out OVER 100% of the entry fees, thus it kind of implies that the fees have already been covered. thus if you have your 10$ per player in misc fees and raise 2000.00 extra by selling discs and other sponsorship, wouldn't you really have 1100.00 in added cash?

As I said before, a simple statement at sign-up of how much is coming of the top, and how much is going to payout would be a great step forward.
<pre>
For a low cost B-Tier Charity event.
Recommended Int entry fee $30 + fees.
Entry = $40
PDGA = - $3
Series = - $2
Sanct = - $1 ($75/75 Players)
Charity = - $4
Players pack = - $10
$ to Payout = $20

If this field is 20 players that is $800 in entry fees.
Charity = $80
Event Fees = $120
Players packs = $200
100% payout = $400
</pre>
If the TD gets sponsorship to cover PDGA and Series fees of $120 then the payout will be $520.

To a player that forgets about the charity, $520 still looks low.

To a player who remembers the Charity money was taken out, this looks about right.

To the TD and PDGA, $520 is 130% payout.

Even when all the fees (inlcuding the charity) are covered by sponsorship, the players pack drops the perceived payout.

$600 paid out from $800 in entry fees. To reach entry = payout, you need to sponsor the players packs as well. This gets the players to an easy addition level of $800 in and $800 paid out. It requires 200% real payout to get there.

The numbers work out easier in the higher divisions (where the entry is larger, but the fees remain constant), and worse in the rec divisions (where the fees are equal to the payout).

These numbers also expect the TD to cover park usage and administrative costs out of their pockets (or payout profits).

Just something to remember when you go to an event and the performance payout equals or exceeds the total of entry fees paid.

Other divisions (B-tier require 110% payout to Pros and 100% to Ams), the last column is amount per player required to reach payout percentages not including players packs.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Div.</td><td>Max</td><td>Fees</td><td>Entry</td><td>players pack</td><td>to payout</td><td>req payout
</td></tr><tr><td> MPO/FPO</td><td>$60</td><td>$10</td><td>$70</td><td>$ 0</td><td>$60</td><td>$66
</td></tr><tr><td> Other Pro</td><td>$50</td><td>$10</td><td>$60</td><td>$ 0</td><td>$50</td><td>$55
</td></tr><tr><td> Advanced</td><td>$40</td><td>$10</td><td>$50</td><td>$10</td><td>$30</td><td>$30
</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>$30</td><td>$10</td><td>$40</td><td>$10</td><td>$20</td><td>$20
</td></tr><tr><td>Recreational</td><td>$20</td><td>$10</td><td>$30</td><td>$10</td><td>$10</td><td>$10
</td></tr><tr><td> Juniors</td><td>$20</td><td>$10</td><td>$30</td><td>$10</td><td>$10</td><td>$10</tr></td></table>

everyone already knows about those fees and is probably taking them into account when they do their "mental calculations". that isn't what i was talking about jon. i was more referring to the 2000.00 in added cash on the flyer kind of thing. the term added cash in my mind refers to money that is paid out OVER 100% of the entry fees, thus it kind of implies that the fees have already been covered. thus if you have your 10$ per player in misc fees and raise 2000.00 extra by selling discs and other sponsorship, wouldn't you really have 1100.00 in added cash?



The question is "What is TOTAL ENTRY FEE ?

Our sanctioning agreement says that it is total entry fee minus many variable fees allowed to be deducted by the PDGA.

So unless every event has the exact same fees (which most don't) that use of the term "Total Entry Fees" could mean just about anything.

The only readily available number available and comprehensible to everyone is what the entry fee REALLY was times the number of players in that division.

Is there some reason I am missing here as to why we need to be nebulous in our approach to defining �Added Cash� or �Total Entry Fee�?

If $10 out of every entry fee goes to fees, and this is known, then right off the bat if payouts equal the actual total entry fees(not minus fees), then folks will know instantly that $10 of the fees per player were covered by the event. This is not �Added Cash� and should not be included in the �Added Cash� number; it should be in the �Event Value� number, with lunches, ctps, etc. Anything short of that is going to not only be confusing but make event to event Added Cash comparisons meaningless.

IMO.

Did you read my post, slo?

If you go by "total cost to play the tourney" then non-PDGA members pay $5 more than PDGA members....So scrap the "total cost to play" approach or go to members only.

I'm still here...is "total cost to play the tourney" [entire field] the same as 'Total entry Fees' [entire field]? Or is 'Total entry fees' DERIVED from the sum of all the player contributions [costs]? [That is, the temp. membership $$'s have been taken out. A slightly adjusted figure.]

...I believe I mentioned early-on adjusted entry fees made more sense, but there seems to be a consensus that Joe DGer will be confused by anything more sophisticated than the 'Total-Total' equation. Which may/may not be BS, but I'm seeing arguments here in its favor.

Again, I ask.

What can be more simple, straight-forward, and honest than telling people UP FRONT, that a portion of their EVENT FEE, will go toward paying certain mandated per-player fees and will NOT be counted as part of the payout calculation?

If I come to you with an entry fee check for $85 and you tell me that $10 of that will go toward the various fees, then I can easily see that the payout will be based on $75 per player in my division. And if there are 10 of us, I would consider a $750 payout to be 100%. And if you graciously put another $250 in the purse, whether from sponsorship, retail/wholesale profit, or out of your own pocket, I'd call that ADDED CASH. and my division would have a 133% payout.

The guidelines clearly say that the TOTAL ENTRY FEE is calculated AFTER the fees are deducted. It doesn't matter if your tournament has $12 in fees and my tournament has $7. You charge an Event Fee of $87 and I charge an Event Fee of $82. The amount left ($75) is the same and is what the percentage of payout is calculated on. Stating it all up front leaves no doubt to the player, the TD, the media, or anyone else just what our tournaments are paying and what fees are being collected by the TD for the various organizations involved.

Nobody has been "nebulous" in defining ADDED CASH. It's the money added to the purse on top of the entry fees.

Nobody has been "nebulous" in defining TOTAL ENTRY FEES. It's the total of the fees left after the various mandated fees are deducted.

Maybe we need to break it down as:
<ul type="square"> Competition Fee: What goes in the purse PDGA Fee: Per-player fee Local Fee: Club fee for whatever Regional or Series Fee: Cumulative fee for year end awards Tournament Administration Fee: Player's share of sanctioning, insurance, and park rental fees. [/list]
All of these added together are the EVENT ENTRY FEE, but the Competition Fee is the only one that is counted when it comes to the payout. The Competition Fee is the player's stake in the play for the day. The other fees (and all of them may not be applicable) are the cost of enjoying a day of disc golf with your friends and getting PDGA Points and Player Rating for the day. The value of player's packs and other amenities can also be plainly stated rather than used to buffer the figures.

Try not to blow smoke on it, Nick. Just say whether you would be willing to state UP FRONT what the actual share of the entry fee is that would go to the payout. Seems pretty simple to me. I've done it at every tournament I've run. Everyone knows just what the result will be. Fees are paid, payout is always over 100%, due to added cash, everyone has fun, everyone is happy.

My only problem is that I have never felt that players entry fees should directly go to cover park usage fees, sanctioning costs, or insurance. These are all cost of doing business expenses and should be covered by the club through sponsorship or merchandise margin.

Just mho

My only problem is that I have never felt that players entry fees should directly go to cover park usage fees, sanctioning costs, or insurance. These are all cost of doing business expenses and should be covered by the club through sponsorship or merchandise margin.

Just mho



Gary,

That works if you have a club...or a merchandise margin. But in a sparse area like ours, sometimes it's a solo game running tournaments. And in that case, I think everyone should help bear the costs of the event.

If all of the player's money is returned to them in payout, what investment did they have in the event itself?

I agree with Gary on this one, maybe Green Fees, but other fees should be covered by Disc Sales and Sponsorship money.

And yes, if a tournament gets $2000 in cash sponsorship, they should advertise $2000 added. This tells the player that they should get there moneys worth.

I have found that if I get about $2000 in cash donated, I can add around $700 to the Pro's. This is after all expences and Players packages are taken out. (note, all disc sales and Am profits also go into the general fund)

I agree with Jon because not all tournaments have a the wholesale/retail markup to work with and not all people willing to run tournaments are good at getting people to give them cash donations for said tournaments.

I never said it was a perfect world, I just feel that covering the event overhead (not per player fees) from sponsorship and/or merchandise profits should be the goal for most events.

There are exceptions everywhere, I just would like the events that cover that overhead off the top to be the exceptions. :cool:

Jon,

You tell me the difference:
Event A: Open division pays $100 each in entry fees and there are 50 Open players payout is $4000 and the TD claims 100% payout.

Event B: Open division pays $100 each in entry fees and there are 50 Open players payout is $5000 and the TD claims 100% payout.

Is something different here? Which one needs some explaining and which is immediately understood by anyone capable of simple math? Regardless of the allowances by the PDGA.

Stating it up front does not make it comprehensible to the average player nor does it allow for a clear and concise comparison event to event.

Total entry fee in, total payout out does.

I�m fine with Event B claiming they met PDGA standards, but it is clear to everyone who has ever played in a 100% (or greater) payout that that event did not actually payout 100%.

No smoke here.

Regards,
Nick

PS: I don't have any choice (currently) in the matter, the current standard is as you present; nebulous.

My original question had more to do with Event C

Event C: Open division pays $100 each in entry fees and there are 50 Open players payout is $5000 and the TD claims $1000 added cash.

More smoke, Nick? What do either of those example have to do with the discussion at hand. Simple math tells you that A is paying 80% and B is paying 100%. It goes further than that, though you'd like to hide the reality.

If you'd pay attention to what anyone else is saying, you'd understand that to clearly state where each part of the entry fee goes would make it so very comprehensible to everyone. The players would know that $85 of that $100 entry fee is going into the purse to be used to calculate the payout. And that multiplying $85 by 50 players gives you $4250. And that the other $15 is being used to pay various fees that make it possible for the event to happen. Then when A pays out $4000 they are paying 94% and when B pays out $5000 they are paying 117%. Gee, must be some added cash there at tournament B. And the players at tournament A have some questions to ask.

Pretty logical and simple to me.

Guess I'm a simple guy, though. I don't need to keep hashing it over and debating such a simple principle. I see the logic in it, as you surely don't. No amount of logical explanation ever works if it doesn't conform to your way of thinking.

Look. It's very, very simple. It's very, very logical. It works. No one at a tournament that I've run has ever complained about the complexities of figuring out how the payout is derived. They all understand the need to separate out the other fees. They know that the rest of the entry goes to payout. They go away very happy with 125-150% payouts every time. The charities that we donate to are very happy to get the contributions. The sponsors are happy for the exposure they get. Everyone is so very happy. I must be doing something right by telling everyone UP FRONT how it works.

Keep swinging, Nick. It's good exercise, even though you've struck out already. :DI'm takin' my ball and goin' home.

My original question had more to do with Event C

Event C: Open division pays $100 each in entry fees and there are 50 Open players payout is $5000 and the TD claims $1000 added cash.

That TD shouldn't do that. Even if he had to cover golf course green fees or whatever, he should not call it added cash when it was spent on expenses, because he is going to get a bad reputation with the players doing that. He should just call it 100% payout and the green fees or whatever are not deducted from the payout. When I've covered golf course green fees I didn't call it "added cash." I called it "the last time I'd do an event there that way." Both times, I called it that, I'm such a sucker.

That TD shouldn't do that.


I agree.

We should probably define "added cash" somewhere so that no honest TDs make that mistake and get labeled as evil greedy bastards. I don't do that, but I can easily see someone getting some cash sposorship, adding it to his/her tourney general fund, and then announcing in exuberation "This much added cash for my event!" You know, because it was cash and it was added.

idahojon wrote: "...The guidelines clearly say that the TOTAL ENTRY FEE is calculated AFTER the fees are deducted. It doesn't matter if your tournament has $12 in fees and my tournament has $7. You charge an Event Fee of $87 and I charge an Event Fee of $82. The amount left ($75) is the same and is what the percentage of payout is calculated on."

I also gather:
Competition Fee: What goes in the purse
+ PDGA Fee: Per-player fee
+ Local Fee: Club fee for whatever
+ Regional or Series Fee: Cumulative fee for year end awards
+ Tournament Administration Fee: Player's share of sanctioning, insurance, and park rental fees.

= EVENT ENTRY FEE

Thanks, I evidently was transposing TOTAL ENTRY FEE with the amount on the cheques. That sum would be the EVENT ENTRY FEE + membership $$s collected.

...there doesn't seem to be any special name for the sum total [$$ amount] of what's written on the checks. Possibly because some of that $$[ e.g. memberships] isn't actually event specific.

My original question had more to do with Event C

Event C: Open division pays $100 each in entry fees and there are 50 Open players payout is $5000 and the TD claims $1000 added cash.



Yes, there is that one as well. The thing I hope that comes out of this is a "usable" and "understandable" by just about anyone definition of "Added Cash", and for that to happen we need clearly and precisely defined definitions of "Total Entry Fee" and "Event Value".

Here are the ones that work for me:
1) Total Entry Fee- Total amount of moneys collected for each division.
2) Added Cash- Amount of cash or cash value beyond the "Total Entry Fee".
3) Percentage of entry fee/payout- $5000 in entry fees/$6000 in payouts = 120%
4) Event Value- All event expenses not covered by "Total Entry Fees" or "Added Cash".

I can't imagine a more straightforward methodology than this. In fact, I bet if you ask PDGA Tournament Players about it they'll likely answer that this is the way it already works. I understand that the PDGA currently allows certain fees to be removed from the �Total Entry Fee� before calculation of �Added Cash� and �Percentage of entry fee/payout�, but for me and I strongly suspect most others this confuses those definitions and makes meaningful comparison, event to event, nearly useless.

And after all, isn�t that what those definitions and numbers were created for; to help the PDGA and players who play in their events know which event is providing 100% payouts and which ones are providing less or more?

While using Total Entry Fee (the amount of the check written to the TD) make some sense for the Pro divisions, it makes less sense to use it for the Am divisions in general, and little sense for the Rec division since half of the recommended entry fee applied to payout is returned as a player pack for B-Tiers.

It takes a lot of sponsorship to increase the payout by 200% just to reach the 1:1 ratio of total entry to payout you are aiming at. It's not as big a deal when the per player fees are 1/10th the total entry fee, but when the per player fees and player pack consumes 2/3rds of the total entry, it takes a lot just to reach the 100% total entry payback mark.

Players instead need some indication of how much of the Total Entry goes to expenses and then the efforts of the TDs to cover those expenses with sponsorship dollars is much more visible. Having a TD raise a couple of thousand dollars in sponsorship that just covers fees and player packs so they can advertise 100% payout doesn't do the TD justice.

More smoke, Nick? What do either of those example have to do with the discussion at hand. Simple math tells you that A is paying 80% and B is paying 100%. It goes further than that, though you'd like to hide the reality.


I assure you that I am simply �discussing� this topic with no ill-will towards anyone, nor any goal besides defining �Added Cash�. If you disagree, great! Let�s hear why.

If you'd pay attention to what anyone else is saying, you'd understand that to clearly state where each part of the entry fee goes would make it so very comprehensible to everyone.


I pay attention and hear what you are saying, I just happen to think that you are wrong in your assessment Jon. You are asking the question, �Can we educate players and the general public to understand that PDGA events have certain variable fees, and that these fees can be deducted by the TD prior to calculating �Percentage of entry fee/payout� and �Added Cash�?

Of course we CAN? But for what purpose, in light of the fact that if we can define �Total Entry Fee� more naturally as the total amount paid by the player to participate in the event and then subtract it from the �Total Purse� for amount of �Added Cash� and divide it for �Entry Fee/Payout %� definition and actual amount that NEEDS NO EXPLANATION WHAT SO EVER!

The players would know that $85 of that $100 entry fee is going into the purse to be used to calculate the payout.


So say you, Jon. Certainly �every� TD knows and understands this all too well, but players? I doubt it. And even if they do they still expect that if the TD says there will be 100% Payout of entry fee/payout, and that there was $500 Added Cash and the Payout is less than 100% of the Total Entry Fees (something they can easily calculate, which minus variable fees it is not) then my guess is that they will have a bone to pick with you saying 100% Payout and $500 Added Cash, and that the TD will still feel a little odd saying �Well, fees added up to 25% of the amount you paid to get into the event (not your �Entry Fee�) and the Added Cash didn�t quite cover them, but according to the PDGA it was still 100% Payout.�

And that multiplying $85 by 50 players gives you $4250. And that the other $15 is being used to pay various fees that make it possible for the event to happen. Then when A pays out $4000 they are paying 94% and when B pays out $5000 they are paying 117%. Gee, must be some added cash there at tournament B. And the players at tournament A have some questions to ask.
Pretty logical and simple to me.


Jon, speaking as straight forward and honestly as possible I have to say that you are being purposefully evasive here. Entry Fee in your example IS NOT $85 it is $100. It is some kind of �Adjusted Entry Fee� with the Event Fees removed from the actual �Entry Fee� which results in only $85 of it going to the purse. Then you switch back and knowing that the real �Entry Fee� was $100 (without saying it once in your example) and therefore that the Entry Fee/Purse % was, in the end, 94%.

Here is your example in full detail followed by mine, which is more logical and simpler to the average Joe?:
<table border="1"><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Entry Fee</td><td>Event Fee</td><td>Adjusted Entry Fee</td><td>Added Value to Purse</td><td>Players in Division</td><td>Total Entry Fee to Purse</td><td>Total Added Value to Purse</td><td>Total Purse</td><td>EntryFee/Purse %
</td></tr><tr><td>Jon\'s Event A</td><td>100</td><td>15</td><td>85</td><td>0</td><td>50</td><td>4250</td><td>0</td><td>4250</td><td>100%
</td></tr><tr><td>Jon\'s Event B</td><td>100</td><td>15</td><td>85</td><td>15</td><td>50</td><td>4250</td><td>750</td><td>5000</td><td>117%
</td></tr><tr><td>Nick\'s Event A</td><td>100</td><td></td><td></td><td>50</td><td>5000</td><td></td><td>4250</td><td>94%
</td></tr><tr><td>Nick\'s Event B</td><td>100</td><td></td><td></td><td>50</td><td>5000</td><td></td><td>5000</td><td>100%
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>
In your example the TD can claim 100% payout when it is plainly obvious to most everyone that it was in fact a 94% payout. Furthermore, in you B example the TD could claim that they added $750 in Added Cash and paid out 117%, when it is clear as day to most that payout was really just 100%.

The following needs no UP FRONT explanation of follow up discussion:
Total Entry Fee In = 100% Payout
Total Entry Fee In � 100% Payout = Added Cash

Look. It's very, very simple. It's very, very logical. It works.


Then why are we having this discussion?

No one at a tournament that I've run has ever complained about the complexities of figuring out how the payout is derived. They all understand the need to separate out the other fees. They know that the rest of the entry goes to payout.


Then you are a lucky TD indeed Jon considering all of the �Getting Ripped Off� threads around here and what goes on in the heads of players during PDGA event awards ceremonies.

They go away very happy with 125-150% payouts every time.


I guess I�ll have to take your word on their understanding, state of mind and what �125-150%� means.

The charities that we donate to are very happy to get the contributions. The sponsors are happy for the exposure they get. Everyone is so very happy. I must be doing something right by telling everyone UP FRONT how it works.


Not sure what happy charities and sponsors has to do with sharing financial breakdowns of event expenses UP FRONT. Sounds like a good practice, don�t get me wrong, but as far as simplicity and understandability, and certainly as some kind of universal standard for all TDs to do, it is clearly impractical and lacking in my opinion

Keep swinging, Nick. It's good exercise, even though you've struck out already. I'm takin' my ball and goin' home.


I�m really wondering why you have taken this attitude Jon. I�m not being argumentative, I am presenting why I feel a more straight forward and easy to understand definition of �Total Entry Fee�, �Added Cash�, and �Entry Fee/Payout Percentage� is advisable and easily attainable. You supporting another set of definitions does not make you my competition. I�ve run events; I understand what you are saying, I just think that there is a better way, one that anyone can understand, that would add meaning and value to those terms in understanding what is going on at an event financially.

While using Total Entry Fee (the amount of the check written to the TD) make some sense for the Pro divisions, it makes less sense to use it for the Am divisions in general, and little sense for the Rec division since half of the recommended entry fee applied to payout is returned as a player pack for B-Tiers.

It takes a lot of sponsorship to increase the payout by 200% just to reach the 1:1 ratio of total entry to payout you are aiming at. It's not as big a deal when the per player fees are 1/10th the total entry fee, but when the per player fees and player pack consumes 2/3rds of the total entry, it takes a lot just to reach the 100% total entry payback mark.

Players instead need some indication of how much of the Total Entry goes to expenses and then the efforts of the TDs to cover those expenses with sponsorship dollars is much more visible. Having a TD raise a couple of thousand dollars in sponsorship that just covers fees and player packs so they can advertise 100% payout doesn't do the TD justice.



Gary, this does not, or should not impact the topic of "Added Cash" and (I feel a little silly saying this) what "Entry Fee" means, it is an excellent start into a discussion of "Appropriate PDGA, Regional and Local Fees Based On Entry Fee Amount" (once we can settle on what "Entry Fee" means).

You guys are still discussing this or should I say "You guys are still trying to prove YOUR right!"

Until the PDGA standardizes this crap...DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!

We are ALL correct. Just get out and DO instead of talk about it...experience and the market place will dictate the rest.

Thanks for listening and sign up for the WVO #12

www.westvirginiaopen.com (http://www.westvirginiaopen.com) We are adding cash to the tounament and we ARE deducting the expenses from the pool of money created from entry fees and added cash.

You don't like it..run your own WVO!

Smiles everyone, Smiles!

MS 7002

Establishing where the 100% payout line is very the first step in defining what can be advertised as added cash. Once a standard point for 100% is determined and widely used and advertised the public will be able to recognise where cash was added.

just what this place needs, another topic that maybe ten people care about being hashed around by a bunch of windbags. little wonder that our sport continues to go nowhere.

just what this place needs, another topic that maybe ten people care about being hashed around by a bunch of windbags. little wonder that our sport continues to go nowhere.


That was very helpful. Thanks for contributing to the forward motion of the sport.

you're welcome. now go do something useful like practice.

See Mikey proves that no one cares where the money comes from or how it is used...

Now for my TD fee, what say, 20% of the total added cash or is that total purse? :D

In Jon's Events A and B, the payout percentage is based ONLY on the money that is put into the purse.

In Nick's Events A and B, the payout percentage is based on the money in the purse, plus all the fees that were deducted off the top. Since those fees were never meant to be applied to the payout, how could they be counted toward the payout percentage? With that reasoning a player could say that the $3 parking fee at the park gate counts against the payout percentage, because he had to pay it even though it didn't go into the purse.

Since players seem to be incapable of understanding that only the money that goes into the purse is used to generate the payout (plus any "added cash," since this is where we started this discussion), it's probably fruitless to come up with any definitions.

Twenty players all got together and each threw $100 into a hat and said, let's have a little tournament. They started with $2000, which is all going to get paid back to the winners. But Mr. Park Ranger came along and asked for $100 park fee for them all gathering at once. If they take up a collection and each pitch in $5 more, the park fee is taken care of, otherwise it comes out of the hat. If they pay up another $5, do they have 95.2% payout of $2100 or 100% payout of $2000. If they dip into the hat, do they now have 100% payout of $1900, or do they have 95% payout of $2000? And does it really matter?

It only "doesn't matter" if everybody does it the same way.

It sounds like we don't all do it the same way right now.

Jon,

You are technically correct as concerns PDGA standards about what is 100% payouts, I have never said that you are not.

What I am saying is that that standard is not only difficult to explain, but that it doesn't even need to be explained when there is already a very simple and understandable method, which I dare say most everyone already uses for this:

Total Entry Fee In/Total Payout Out = Payout Percentage

The fees our standards dictate are not fixed, they change per tier level and per regional and local area, and that does not even bring parks fees which very even locally. This variable nature is what makes such standards impossible to provide easily understandable and comparable payout details for inter-event comparison.

Why is it so important to include those fees in total payout and added cash statistics?

If what you say is so easy to explain then why not just have something like:

Event Fees: $15
Entry Fees:
Open $85
Masters $65
Womens $65
Advanced $45
and so on.

I'll tell you why, because it is needlessly convoluted and confusing when one "Entry Fee" number is fine, just as one "Payout" number is fine.

Either way you slice it I hope the final standard provides more clear guidelines than the one we currently have, which leaves most participants guessing.

If the TD report is filled out properly (and some aren't), then the calculations are consistent for all events and have been for some time. PDGA HQ publishes a list of top ranked events sorted various ways. When payout percentage is indicated, it's based on total cash paid to pros divided by cash they paid in entry fees after PDGA, regional, local and park fees are either deducted or not included in the first place - that's assuming the report was done properly. If TDs fill out the Finance page of the report, PDGA HQ can check to see if the math was done correctly although completing that page is not a current TD requirement.

Is it only because Ace Pots are optional that players don't have a hard time understanding the the entry fee is $50 without the ace pot or $55 with it.

THey understand that they are writing a check for $55 and that not all of it is going to payout because they are told about it. What is so hard about listing where the money coming off the top is going on the flyers or posting it at the event ?

Gary,

I am not against including fees, I am concerned with the way it is currently done and would like to see stricter standards set so that meaningful data can be gathered and perhaps advertised.

In the end, am I speaking greek in saying that most folks just add up the entry fees and expect to see that amount in payouts for the TD to claim 100% payout, regardless of the hidden fees. Yes, if you share those fees up front, the confusion should be reduced, but it will not be eliminated.

I'd rather see those fees listed else where, such as the Event Value stat.

Nick, I agree that today most players look at the moeny they paid and multiply that by players in the division and expect to see the payout total that number. Many TDs aim for (and reach) that number.

I just would like to see how much the TD/club is raising/paying to reach that artificial 100% published at the event or on the flyer.

Nick, I agree that today most players look at the moeny they paid and multiply that by players in the division and expect to see the payout total that number. Many TDs aim for (and reach) that number. I just would like to see how much the TD/club is raising/paying to reach that artificial 100% published at the event or on the flyer.



Yes, as an organizer myself I am interested in such statistics as well, and agree that it would be good for the increased appreciation of participants to understand the �REAL� work and cash done on their behalf by the TD and Event Volunteers.

But first things first, let's define:
Entry Fee
Added Cash
Entry Fee/Payout %
Event Value

I feel pretty sure that players, in general, focus primarily on the first 3 and very little on the fourth. This does not mean Event Value is not important, it is the �REALITY� behind the fa�ade. Still, as discussed, most players just focus on what goes in from them and what comes out, and that can be used to provide a useful, understandable and comparable number with relatively little work or explanation necessary on the part of the PDGA or TDs.

From that stat the TD and PDGA later can provide details on just how much per player event expenses were incurred and all of the other dandy things the local club and organizers did for them. But even then, in the end the one number that tells the players what cash or cash value was returned by the event, is the Entry Fee/Payout %. If that number is less than 100% then they know that not enough money was raised to cover event expenses per player. If it is over 100% then they know that expenses were covered and Added Cash was added to the payout (they can even calculate how much without further detail: i.e. 125% payout total payout was $1250, so the Added Cash was $250).

The alternative is to force everyone to fathom the intricate details of event finances, and even if they do get it, the resulting statistics will not make for an easy comparison of such details between events. Neither one is �lying�, it is just that one is easier to use and understand.

If TDs that do not raise much added cash or sponsorship are concerned with having Added Cash of $0 and Entry Fee/Payout % of well under 100% if we move towards the definitions above, then I don't know what to say; if you are saying that those events have $750 Added Cash and 135% Entry Fee/Payout %, then what should events that really do have $750 Added Cash above total entry fees and are playing out 135% Entry Fee/Payout % say? That they have $1500 Added Cash and are paying out 170% Entry Fee/Payout %!?!

When it is plain as day that the first event paid out far less than 100% and that the second one paid out about 135%?

Sorry, I don't see the value in approaching it that way. Seems, if not is, deceptive.

Tournament Entry Fees are out of control!

There are number of events I'd love to play in that are just off the charts expensive now forcing me to choose between them.

Seems like, if you are not one of the "Guaranteed Cash� folks or independently wealthy that most events are shooting out of affordability to travel too range. Like they are for just sponsoring yokels and then the super elite taxmen passing through.

I�d love to see entry fees be attached directly to added cash, rather then the other way around. Like if you get $2000.00 added cash you can charge $2000.00 in entry fee to 90 players, i.e. $22 plus local and pdga fees. If you get $10,0000 then entry fee would be $112 plus local and pdga fees. If you raise no cash then, for PDGA tour at any rate you should only be allowed to charge a bare minimum entry fee (to match the amount of effort you put into getting sponsorship), say $15 maximum.

This would also take our sport away from being gambling like and more towards sport, where an entry fee is not a wager.

(And yes, I most certainly AM whining! :D)

I agree with Nick in my heart but my head disagrees.

In my heart I know it is bad for any sport to make the sport mainly about gambling. That is a cancer that will kill any sport eventually. The big pro sports organizers know this. That is why Pete Rose was banned for life. Somebody tried to adopt a format like ours for croquet and I understand they went to jail.

In my heart I believe it is bad for the sport to bleed the base to create a payout for the elite. I think a lot of players leave the sport when they realize how much of a ponzi scheme it is, and they realize that they are never going to be at the front end of the money stream.

But my head says if you don't like a tournament's entry fee or format, you don't have to play it. If you want tournaments with different entry fees, payout structures or formats from what you are getting, you can take a page from my playbook and run tournaments you want to play.

Eventually the free market will sort this stuff out. If amateurs want a fair deal, (and I've come to believe that 90% of them don't care) they'll play tournaments run by amateurs for amateurs. If they want to sponsor the pros, they'll play all the other tournaments out there.

My head also says that the PDGA is not going to be any better at regulating this than the free market. Clearly, the PDGA is going to be worse. The Board is a bunch of hard working, well intentioned volunteers, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are more powerful than the forces of nature.

My head says, "Heart, you and Nick are just out of touch with the mainstream of disc golfers. But, by all means, run some tournaments you want to play. Between the 90% who don't care and the 10% who do, you should do o.k."

Amen.

I play the tournaments I can afford to play when I can afford to play them.

I don't even have a chance at winning any money back because I am an AM, but there is still enough equipment out there I want to keep me coming back :)

If I can't afford to play in a tournament I'll just wait... that's not enough to make me want to leave the sport...

Ah, but you are a new player with lots of empty boxes to fill! :D

Not to purposely turn a 180 on this thread, but what do you think about this.

A TD toutes that first place open is going to be paid $1000 in a one day B-tier event. A decent number of regional pros show up for the chance. Because it sounds like a good Pro payout.

Find out at the award ceremony

1st $1000
2nd $300
3rd $205
4th $165
.
.
.
10th $40

Seems shady, but according to PDGA payout rules all is good.

The TD took all the added cash to pay 1st that $1000. Even had to use his own money to come up with the extra. No other divisions benefited from the added cash.

There were 27 Pro players out of 103 total players. First recieved almost half of the total pro purse.

Is this a crock or what?

Any time a TD advertises what he is going to do and he does it, I've got no problem with that. If you were playing for second and you wanted him to guarantee second, you should have asked about second. If he took a loss on the tournament in order to keep his word, I'd say he is a stand up guy.

I agree with Bruce, the guy advertised and delivered exactly what he promised. He didn't say X amount added to the total purse, he just guaranteed first place $1000. For the players to assume that every paid place would be proportional to that was erroneous and out of the TD's control.

We've been doing that for three years for our big one-day B-tier...we have guaranteed and paid $500 to the Pro Open winner with no promises to the rest of the field (until this year). For the first couple years, part of that $500 came out of the TDs pocket, but this year (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5030) we finally had enough sponsorship cash to break even on the promise and add $500 to the Pro Open purse which made the drop from 1st place to 2nd less steep.

All that the TD did was base the initial payout figures on the entries taken in, then add whatever was necessary to get 1st place to $500. I believe the first year the payout dropped from $500 to $125 for second. This year's event paid $500 to 1st and $350 to 2nd. The best part in my eyes was that there were only 13 Pro Open players and these guys got paid more than most local events will pay a field of 30+ players.

I'd like to see more tournaments start to do this. It certainly makes for more interesting and competitive golf. Every putt counts when the difference between hitting and missing might mean two or three hundred bucks. Just think of how exhilirating the 10-hole playoff at the 2003 USDGC was, knowing that the one putt that finally didn't fall was worth $5000. At least that was the feeling I had as it unfolded live in front of me.

--Josh

I like it. :cool:No crockery involved; it glorifies the winner, and that's the point...place a premium on besting all. Can that become a regular thing? Could be quite an attraction.

Now what would have been an interesting twist is if there had been a full field and a last minute sponsor adding $10,000 and the payout was:

1st $1000
2nd $5000
3rd $2500
4th $1500

Hey! The TD met his/her obligation, right?!?

I like it. :cool:No crockery involved; it glorifies the winner, and that's the point...place a premium on besting all. Can that become a regular thing? Could be quite an attraction.


People quit playing when all their money always goes to Robbie or Bobby or Micah or Carlo. Especially when the entry is $70+ every time and it all goes to one of the same five people every time.

That's the drawback.

I like it. :cool:No crockery involved; it glorifies the winner, and that's the point...place a premium on besting all. Can that become a regular thing? Could be quite an attraction.


People quit playing when all their money always goes to Robbie or Bobby or Micah or Carlo. Especially when the entry is $70+ every time and it all goes to one of the same five people every time.

That's the drawback.



My observations concur.

I totally agree w/ glorifying the winner. This is the point, however it would be nifty to have some formula worked out where a certain % of the top places won back at least enough to pay for entering the tourny. Also, I don't really see the point in winning less than the entrance fee... it's kind of bittersweet if you ask me... even for me as an AM, paying $25 to get in and walking out with $15 in equipment is kind of a joke. I paid my $25, I'd just as soon see that $15 be bumped up to someone who beat me. I'll be getting it back soon enough :)

So, if there are any math whizes out there who can figure out various ways of making it so that the top 25% (for example only) of people who place at least get entrance fee back, that would be pretty cool.

I totally agree w/ glorifying the winner. This is the point, however it would be nifty to have some formula worked out where a certain % of the top places won back at least enough to pay for entering the tourny. Also, I don't really see the point in winning less than the entrance fee... it's kind of bittersweet if you ask me... even for me as an AM, paying $25 to get in and walking out with $15 in equipment is kind of a joke. I paid my $25, I'd just as soon see that $15 be bumped up to someone who beat me. I'll be getting it back soon enough :)

So, if there are any math whizes out there who can figure out various ways of making it so that the top 25% (for example only) of people who place at least get entrance fee back, that would be pretty cool.



Accomplishing this would be easier than formulating payouts, all you need to to is charge less entry fee and raise more added cash.

Great events can charge as much or as little as they want and they will still fill, i.e. Paw Paw and USDGC. It is value and life experience the majority of participants are looking for. Payout is just icing. Less prestigious events need to factor in cost vs. expectation of payout.

The key is value.

I don't think it should be the model, no, but one-per-year sounds dandy. The 'drawback' is the other side of the asset coin: It's a shootout...tantamount to a "skins" format. Those have appeal in Bolf, so....

Last 'season', pre-SoCal status, Ventura had something very much akin to this: $1,000 to First. :eek:

So, if there are any math whizes out there who can figure out various ways of making it so that the top 25% (for example only) of people who place at least get entrance fee back, that would be pretty cool.

I'm sure it's much higher than that already...might you mean that if 25% of the field places, then 100% of those would get their entry fee back?

....I think the standardized rationale on getting 'your' $15 payout in an event which charges $25 [which is a very low amount for a sanctioned event, by the way] is that there is an amount taken "off-the-top" for fees, trophies, food, prizes, etc. So if that amount works out to be $10, $25-$10=$15 is a 100% payout. ;)

I understand what you're saying about "off-the-top" expenses, but are those expenses "off the top" of the winners prizes, or just the entrance fees of those who don't cash? What I'm saying is if there is an entrance fee of $25 (which I know is low... now that I signed up for the Michiana :) ) then why bother paying out $10-$15 to the last spot... I mean I know that especially for AMs the idea is to pay out as many places as possible to encourage staying with the game, but I'd just as soon risk that $15 for a lower place in exchange for a higher potential payout for winning. Now in higher entry fee events... like $70-100... I see no problem having the last few spots pay out like $30-75 just because it's a higher cost to the players and with large amounts like that a partial win-back is a little bit more reasonable, especially since a lot of people incur travel costs for going to larger events like that.

This is just my opinion though, I am admittedly very new to the game, so who knows what I'll think after I've been doing it a few years. This is a good topic to discuss though, no matter what.

I get what you mean by eschewing the lower amounts, sure. Others might feel even a sticker or mini to show for the effort would be something.

That $$ is for everyone. Even if you don't get a trophy or prize, your division did. Even if you don't have the Lunch it was offered; the event was santioned for non-placers as well, etc.