<font color="blue"> post deleted due to a personal attack </font>

It's a good thing he used smiley facrs. I almost thought she was serious for a minute.

Very good question, I am shocked at the non-member fee increase, perhaps there's more info in the 08 Sanctioning Agreements that might offset this, perhaps the increase shouldn't of been announced until the whole "big picture" could be viewed.

All this talk about the PDGA wanting to work with the Southern Nationals series areas and they double the price on one of the larger issues that the Series has with the PDGA.

More Info Please, I don't want to see the PDGA losing valuable ground that alot of us have worked hard to obtain.

It's a good thing he used smiley facrs. I almost thought she was serious for a minute.



Come on BB, John Daily is clearly a HE. ;)

The non-member fee has been raised from $5 to $10 for 2008. One of the reasons is that membership rates have risen several times over the last decade while the non-member fee has stayed the same. Many of our members feel that membership in the PDGA should be required to compete in a sanctioned event and question why we let non-members compete at all. Many other sports organizations require membership to compete in their sanctioned events. I personally feel it would be a huge mistake to require membership to compete in all of our events as we are still an emerging sport and we need to encourage new players to take up the sport. The office is currently working on a list of benefits that we can provide to non-members who pay to play in our sanctioned events.

The Competition Endowment Program will allow charity events and tournaments in areas with few PDGA members to apply to the PDGA to waive the non-member fee for their events. This will be a limited program with established guidelines and requirements. The exact details are still being worked out but we expect to have a plan in place by mid November. The Unity Summit events this year are being run using some of the guidelines of the Competition Endowment Program.

It is an extremely busy time for the office as we planning and preparing all of the documents needed for 2008. We kindly ask for your patience in publishing the details of these new programs. As always, please feel free to contact me at the PDGA office if you have any concerns you would like to share.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

You do have to admit that John Daly has some huge man-breasts, maybe that's what got Bill confused...

When the PDGA falls behind on their schedule, they always say "the exact details are being worked out". They practice saying that every morning at the Wildwood HQ, it's part of their pledge of allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the almighty dollars that we take and take and take from our members every year, and to the obfuscation of the PDGA Financials so that they are totally clueless when we spend their money on trips to Europe and Japan, and to the republican George Bush who we imitate daily with our deceit and laziness, always remembering to say "the exact details are being worked out" when we are way behind schedule, one nation under God with liberty and justice for none except Chuck". :D:D :p

$75 dollars for membership and you can't even get the early 2008 schedule before Halloween. You make us so proud!!!

I wish the PDGA could finalize their schedule as fast as they approved that stupid Turbo putter and then dis-approved it...way to think 24 hours ahead!!! WHOOOPIEEEEE WE ARE THE PDGA :) :cool::eek:

sheesh, my TD friend who runs an early year event sure would like to promote his event as a PDGA, but if you can't get your act together why should he bother? I mean some TD's actually PLAN AHEAD MORE THAN 24 HOURS and if you can't get the details finalized you are dropping the ball. AGAIN. EVERY FREAKIN YEAR YOU CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT THAT A NEW YEAR STARTS AFTER DECEMBER, BUT YOU CAN SURE FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THE MEMBERS PAY OUT THE WAZZOO FOR YOUR FLIGHTS TO JAPAN AND SCANDINAVIA CAN'T YOU??? GLAD YOU HAVE YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!!!

Maybe you should run for office and try to change things. Oh wait.....nevermind. :o

That also bugs about the PDGA every year the PDGA waits till Nov to start the schedule. Every year people have to take there vacation about this time. So why cant they put the schedule out in Sept. Event like the Gentlemans Club and Memorial have dates at least you could show us the dates set in stone.

<font color="blue"> post deleted due to a personal attack </font>

Don't you dare ask questions Dorothy!!! Gentry is untouchable, the new Guru. So what if he flies to Japan and can't answer questions about International Sanctioning after studying them first-hand at the JO...it was money well-spent!!! He didn't learn how to get a schedule out timely there either but hey, let's fly him around the globe three times next year in the name of, uh, what was the purpose of those trips if he didn't learn anything...help me out here...

WHO NEEDS ACCOUNTABILITY? LET'S RAISE THE DUES SOME MORE AND SEE IF WE CAN GET A NEGATIVE GROWTH RATE!!

post deleted due to a personal attack




Okay PDGA members, you have to admit that the above quote made you smile. Cheers. :p
http://www.daarnet.nl/vincent/moppen/afb/laughing.gif

IT's getting thick in here!

This just in...
The PDGA and SN and NEFA have joined together. Now there will not only be FREE memberships to all AMs, but will pay all Pros $100 to join! All tournies will be free to AMs and Pros with ratings 999 and below. All 1000 rated Pros will be paid $500 just to enter and another $500 if they show up at the tourny! Total pay-outs for ALL tournies will be at least $1,000,000. All Pros will have golf carts driven be Hooter's girls, serving ice cold beer! Ams will have to carry their own. The Hilton and Holiday Inn are sponsor hotels, so all members can stay for free, even if there is not a tourny within 100 miles. Lexus has decided to give all Pros a new car. Ams will get a Toyota. Stay tuned, more free stuff is coming!

New benefit...
The weather will be controlled for all members. No more rain or high winds.
Stay tuned, more FREE stuff coming!

All Pros will have golf carts driven be Hooter's girls, serving ice cold beer!


Sounds more like the well endowed disc golf Fantasy League program...

<font color="blue"> post deleted due to a personal attack </font>

Edited by MTL_The_Moderator (10/25/07 02:22 PM)



NO! Say it ain't so MTL! I wish i had copied and saved Joe Proud's post. Yes, there was some name calling going on but that was one of those posts that is said to cure cancer. Laughter cures cancer? I'm not sure i agree with the Docs about that, but laughter sure does make you feel better. I had visions of re-reading that on those days where you have that not so fresh feeling. Ah' Shucks!

All Pros will have golf carts driven be Hooter's girls, serving ice cold beer!


Sounds more like the well endowed disc golf Fantasy League program...



Well endowed MIKEY disc golf FANTASY League

This just in...
Not only will the beer be free, but the beer companies will pay us to drink DURING ALL TOURNY ROUNDS! Also, the Hooter's girls won't just drive the carts and serve us beer, they'll make mad passionate monkey love with us, too! All of this thanks to...

Wake up! There is no free lunch.

All Pros will have golf carts driven be Hooter's girls, serving ice cold beer! Ams will have to carry their own.


I don't know if I can handle the load of carrying my own beer serving Hooter's girl, but I promise I'll do my best!

Until 2006 all USRA (United States Racquetball Association) sanctioned events required membership. If you weren't a member you didn't get to compete at any level. In 2006 they instituted a limited event membership that cost $15. It was good for only the weekend of the event that you wanted to compete in.

I am one of those folks that believes if you want to compete in a sanctioned event then you should be required to join the sanctioning body. If you don't want to join then don't play sanctioned events. There are plenty of non-sanctioned events (club monthlies, summer doubles, home grown tours, etc.) for players to compete in that don't require PDGA membership.

Oh yeah, and while I am on my soap box I am so sick of hearing the same stuff from the same folks. Have you ever entertained the thought that you might be wrong? If you have such a vile outlook of the PDGA then why do you keep joining the organization? Don't you ever get tired of repeating yourself? Do you have a text file that you just use to cut and paste the same text over and over again?

The one thing that you continue to prove is the value of the message board (or lack thereof).

I am so glad that I voted to shut it down. I just wish I had not been in the minority at that time.

Please feel free to waste your time responding. I may or may not waste my time reading it. You can also feel free to contact me directly. My contact information is all over the web. You can google my name.

Kirk Yoo

Until 2006 all USRA (United States Racquetball Association) sanctioned events required membership. If you weren't a member you didn't get to compete at any level. In 2006 they instituted a limited event membership that cost $15. It was good for only the weekend of the event that you wanted to compete in.

Exactly. And racquetball is going down the toilet in terms of growth and participation. Virtually every sports and fitness club I've been in where you had to have reservations to play racquetball in the 80's has converted one court to a fitness room and two other courts to walleyball and the other courts are empty half the time. Racquetball is a sport we need to imitate. Maybe we should adopt the croquet dress code while we're at it. Oh, wait, we already have.

I was talking to one of my co-conspirators about this and he said, "You know, we fought this issue last time and won. Let's just let them [censored] themselves this time. They are going to make themsleves irrelevant and we won't have to pay them $750 a tournament any more."

I posted on this on the "Ask Peter Shive" forum.

I understand that memberhip has risen and the brain trust figures that the non-member fee is now going up to get it to a point where it mathmatically stood in relation to the actual membership fee years ago. The abacus will again tell us that it will cost five non-member fees to join the PDGA. The rationale is that by the sixth tournament you would be saying, "Gee, I shoulda joined." The reality is that by the second or third tournament you may be saying, "Gee, I should just play in more non-sanctioned tournaments."

I do not want to see an increase in non-sanctioned tournaments or tournaments that do not sanction the lower divisions. I play in a lower division and do not want to see less sanctioned tournaments for me. Or, I do not want to have to play grandmasters and get my brains beat in by better players and my money taken from me by those same better players. I like playing Recthusiast and hacking up the park with half a chance to win something or at least avoid DFL in a sanctioned tournament. With $10 non-member fees and lots of new players who do not yet want to drop $50 on a membership because they only play a coupla tournaments a year I foresee plenty of TD's running non-sanctioned Recthusiast and Intereational divisons for 2008.

You want non-members to play sanctioned tournaments. They play a few and say, "Hey, that was fun" and then they plunk down the $50 and join. That's what happened with me. I played one of Bruce's tournaments in 2004 and came in last place. I had a blast, joined the PDGA and have not turned back. Raising the fee to $10 is like having a professional hockey team and refusing to televise their home games. You stop getting new members/fans. What happens? The local minor league hockey team is more popular than an original six franchise and the local park district tournaments are cheaper for the newbies to play. If the trend continues, it will stop being worth it for me to plunk down my $50 and that is downwardly mobile for the PDGA. I really don't want to take my bag and play at Wolves games but I might have to. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

There is a point where the desire to get more members starts creasting more non-sanctioned events. I feel we are at that point. I hope I am wrong.

I totaly agree with raising non-members fees. I wish the PDGA would lower the membership fee for people in Rec lower than the rest of the Ams. Like the first time you join it would be like $25 but after the first year it goes up.

FYI first year members cost the PDGA more than other years for fulfillment and other associated costs.

mike, how do you know that? (honest question)

A prior board published that as a fact. Assuming we still give first year members a disc, a rule book, some stickers and a mini it might still be true.

Pat, here is a quote from Brian Graham on the Magazine Opt-Out thread:

It is good business practice to put out an RFP from time to time to ensure that we are getting the best value for our members. You can expect to see more RFP's in the future as we continue to seek out improved quality and better value for the association.


What RFPs are we going to see in the near future? <font color="white">Please say ratings!</font>

i am not aware of any scheduled for the remainder of this year. there is at least one for next year - for the 2009 online registration services that are going to be handled by Breiner in 2008.

A prior board published that as a fact. Assuming we still give first year members a disc, a rule book, some stickers and a mini it might still be true.



First year members get a disc, numbered mini and other items which renewing members do not receive. The result is that first year members cost more to service than renewals.

It was posted at some point in the last couple of years (I have no idea when), but if you make the simple analysis that first time members receive additional items for their membership (disc, mini, sticker, rulebook), it's obvious. In addition to that all of their info needs to be entered from scratch in a database(s?) for ratings, mailings, magazine, etc. If $5 is insufficient to handle non-members for tourneys, then it is reasonable to assume that it most likely costs more than that for initial record keeping of a new member.

This is somewhat disingenuous seeing that racquetball has been circling the drain for years. Permitting non-member participation is a last gasp effort of the org to attract participation.

Disc golf is in the position racquetball was 25 years ago. Everyone wanted to play. The true test will be does DG outlive RB. Check back in 25 years.


And racquetball is going down the toilet in terms of growth and participation.

I doubt raising the non-member fee to $10 will help participation in PDGA events in certain parts of the south. A lot of our players didn't want to pay the $5 fee. Not the PDGA wants to make it even more difficult? I suppose we could ask for a waiver, but at this point, I have no idea what hoops we'd have to jump through to get them OR when that decision would be made. I already have two 2008 events scheduled and they will be sanctioned, just not with the PDGA! Now I have to decide how bad I want to go back to Bowling Green this year. rWc3523

Racquetball was just an example. Also, all USRA sanctioned events since 1980 have always required membership. You are correct that racquetball is on the decline. Care to venture a guess as to why?

There are many other sports that require membership to participate in sanctioned events. Try doing some research. Google is a wonderful tool.

My point was that there are plenty of non-sanctioned events for those players that don't want to join.

I still believe that if it is a PDGA sanctioned event then you should be a member to participate. If you don't want to join or can't afford to join then stick with leagues, monthlies and summer doubles.

Kirk

Not to ruin anyone's fun, but you already have to be a member to participate in all PDGA sanctioned events (now that there are no D-Tiers). The good or bad thing is that we offer really cheap temporary memberships that are only valid for the duration of the event and carry no benefits beyond being able to play.

There are then two questions to address.

1. Should we allow temporary memberships and at what cost ?
2. Should temporary memberships last longer than the event and carry more benefits ?


Some dues paying members are complaining that non-members are stealing what should be member privileges by paying a token fee and the fee should be higher or the non-members not even allowed to play.

Other members are seeing that these are likely bad choices in the area they live and play.

The PDGA has tried temp memberships that lasted longer with more benefits a couple of years ago with little success (if my memory serves).

I really think there needs to be some sort of PDGA affiliated event that is note really a sanctioned competition, but an affiliated demonstration/clinic/tournament aimed at introducing non-tournament players to organized competition. I know that I spent played a many years afraid of jumping into tournament golf.

Thanks Captain, that's exactly what I'll do! And it's not a matter of "not being able to afford" playing in PDGA events. If that's the way you want to paint it, so be it. I can have as good a time participating in SN events as I can PDGA events. And there are plenty of folks in the southeast willing to do the same! Adios! rWc****

I don't like the raising of fees as a TD simply because I charge $20 for the intermediate division. This also is the bulk of non PDGA members at the events I TD and the looks I get when I have to explain that its $5 extra dollars to play is unbelievable now I have to tell them its $10 extra dollars, thats half their entry fee, on top of the PDGA's $2 per player fee. I would like to see this temp fee excluded for the intermediate division or whatever the new division is below advanced. A lot of these players have no idea what PDGA sanctioning means or even that there is such an association. I may exclude the lowest am divisions from sanctioning next year, it just doesn't seem worth taking an extra $12 bucks from a kid who had the guts to finally come out and play in a big tournament. And if there is going to be this increase I would love to see the PDGA award memberships to the top finishing non member in the lower divisions at PDGA events. It would be no problem as a TD to collect said player's info and include it in the TD report. With all the money collected in the non member fees I don't think it would break the bank to give away one membership per event.

I will be using the wording non-member to mean temporary member.

I like the idea of rewarding the winner of a PDGA sanctioned Tourney a membership, or meaybe the highest placing non-member a membership. Maybe some guidelines would be in order, say, there needs to be at least so mamny non-members playing and that the TOTAL of their non-member contributions equal the purchase price of a membership.

Or how about non-members can only collect half of the winnings of where they placed, ie they win the event and the winner was to receive $150 in merchandise. Well they could only collect $75 and the other half has to be invested in the local club or a deeper payout is in order.

There are many players who are non-members and have been for their lifetime or who have been former members in good standings, that play sanctioned events as non-members because they know that they can 'cash' and don't really care for the organization, but want to take the 'cash' without paying the piper.

I say that we reward the membership with more at sanctioned tourneys, but still reward the non-members, just with less.

Whether it is $5 or $10, there will still be non-members playing, but with the reduction of rewards, maybe you would have more joining or staying current.

I still like the idea of rewarding the winner or highest placing non-member with a membership. For the newbies, this might be the golden egg.

My 2 cents....

like the idea of rewarding the winner of a PDGA sanctioned Tourney a membership, or meaybe the highest placing non-member a membership. Maybe some guidelines would be in order, say, there needs to be at least so mamny non-members playing and that the TOTAL of their non-member contributions equal the purchase price of a membership.

interesting idea. at first glance, why not? if 5 nonmembers show up, thats $50. since there is nearly zero cost for processing these temp members' event data, why not seed a few memberships out there? if 50% of the 800 sanctioned events in a year had enough nonmems, we'd have 400 new members - a 3.3% membership gain and 400 great opportunities to create long term members.

i am a bit concerned about the TDs who have low cost Am divisions. that the temp fee would be more than 50% of the entry fee could significantly affect these events.

Where I live, the PDGA is not popular. Non-members outnumber members so PDGA sanctioning is not a viable option. The PDGA has to make being a member more attractive.

I understand that in many parts of the country, there are no real alternatives, but in the southeast, there are. rWc****

Sandalman:

since there is nearly zero cost for processing these temp members' event data



2007 Fall Summit meeting minutes:

The current $5 fee is not sufficient to cover the added staff costs of processing nonmembers



Well, which is it?

hmmm... excellant question, and even better eye :) . its cool someone is watching this close. i am not sure how the "The current $5 fee is not sufficient" statement came about, or who did the analysis. Brain introduced the topic, so he might be able to fill us in.

it is VERY possible i do not understand the process or what we provide for these temp memberships completely. my experience tells me that including a nonmember record in a batch of 100 other records for event and ratings processing should not cost very much at all, if its even measurable.

What cost is there to process non-members? They don't get any processing that I've ever seen. If it costs something to process them, then don't process them. Problem solved. This discussion is insane.

like i said, i would expect the cost to be extremely close to zero. if the TD submits electronically, then we'd be talking immeasurably low cost. for paper users, i guess its the cost of entering the players name and round data into the event results system. that still sounds like much less than $5. thats why i said its possible there is some other processes happening that are less obvious. to get such a large gap between the number you'd expect and the number you're given almost always means that the expectation did not include some of those less obvious costs. i'm not gonna say that the "more than $5" statement is wrong just because i cannot explain the gap myself though.

I just think that the BoD has done some really crazy stuff lately. Instead of polling the members on temp fees that will reduce and kill some PDGA events, they poll us on tech specs instead, things that should be more of a BoD decision, as opposed to ruining way to many PDGA sanctioned events, and thus making TD's decide to not have events sanctioned at all next year. If we are raising the non member fees then maybe some benefits should also be given to them, like a temp member number and ratings, since I doubt that would even cost anyone 10.00 to process?

Are any other PDGA fee's going to increase this year?

Is there going to be a "Tiered Membership"?

Trying to be patient until November 15th.......

on the electronic TD report, the PDGA asks for TD's to send contact info on Non-Members so they may mail them literature on the PDGA, don't know how many TD's really do this but that would cost something, of course that means that Non-Members may be paying money to receive not asked for solicitations thru the mail......I don't blame the PDGA for making money, anyone involved in a local or regional DG organization surely understands that you must generate revenue to be able to promote DG

Question is....... that the PDGA might be charging too much for some markets to bear

Mr. Graham, would you share with the membership on the Discussion Board what it cost to process Non-Members??

One cost is determining if a non-member is really a non-member or a PDGA member. Every player is checked to determine if they are really a member, a member who has just renewed, a lapsed member or a new member that the TD didn't have their new PDGA number yet. With similar names like Bob Smith, it's not an insignificant process. Of course, the more events such as those in SN country where there are few members, there are many names to check. Not saying that this alone fully justifies the $5 or $10 NM fee, but just pointing out some part of the extra effort made for every name on the TD report that doesn't have a PDGA number assigned.

We recruit new members by offering them something worthwhile. Mainly, keeping track of scores and ratings. To some extent, promoting the sport and providing a forum and magazine etc. If this is worthwhile, and it is to me, we join.

The temp membership allows only one thing and should continue to allow only one thing--- you can play in that day's sanctioned tournament. You do not get a rating, you do not get scores tracked, you do not get any of the other stuff. For $5 extra, you get to play. It should stay that way. Its enough to make you think about joining especially if you like ratings etc. Its not so much that you will chase away casual or new players.Its not so low that you give less reason to join. If PDGA is worthwhile, people will join. My hockey analogy stands. If the home team is worth watching you will not be demeaning the value of the season ticket holders purchase by giving away the product and televising home games. By making the home games (and PDGA sanctioned events) accessible, you continue to GROW the sport.

What does it cost PDGA for the $5 extra they get? As mentioned above, nothing. There are a few extra lines on the TD report and a couple of bytes on the website to list all the players including the non-members. The only "benefit" the non-members get is that they will see an unoffical rating until the TD report is in and the unofficial ratings disappear. If we really want to take away this benefit I am sure the software can be tweaked so no unoffical ratings show for non-members.

Please remember, I am making NOT making this argument to make life easier for non-members. I am making this argument so a member will not have to fear that there will be a reduced number of sanctioned events in which he can play. I am also making this argument because I want to attract those non-members, get them excited about disc golf and have them join the PDGA. I don't want to chase them away.

One cost is determining if a non-member is really a non-member or a PDGA member. Every player is checked to determine if they are really a member, a member who has just renewed, a lapsed member or a new member that the TD didn't have their new PDGA number yet. With similar names like Bob Smith, it's not an insignificant process.



Where in the electronic TD report, without a PDGA #, is there anyway to check this?

There isn't any place in it for address, phone #, e-mail, ect. that might be checked thru a data base and of course all of those things may change for any individual.

I realize that there's the page that the PDGA asks for non-member info but it's not mandatory and I doubt that many TD's fill it out or have non-members fill it out (maybe most do?)

I remember my first PDGA tournament several years ago when the TD had me fill out a "temporary membership form"
the TD had told me it was good for "x" amount of time which was longer than that particular tournament, I wonder if he was mistaken about that now, I still never received any kind of info or offer to fully join thru the mail.

One cost is determining if a non-member is really a non-member or a PDGA member. Every player is checked to determine if they are really a member, a member who has just renewed, a lapsed member or a new member that the TD didn't have their new PDGA number yet. With similar names like Bob Smith, it's not an insignificant process. Of course, the more events such as those in SN country where there are few members, there are many names to check. Not saying that this alone fully justifies the $5 or $10 NM fee, but just pointing out some part of the extra effort made for every name on the TD report that doesn't have a PDGA number assigned.

This is just b.s. If the PDGA were calling up non-members to find out if they were the same Bob Smith who just joined in California or whatever, I'd be hearing about it from the Bob Smiths who play my tournaments. When we turn in PDGA reports with player names misspelled, or PDGA numbers misreported, that stuff gets processed as is until one of our players points out the mistake. Back when I used to write up the TD reports, every tournament some jerk would sneak in without paying his $5 fee by telling me that he was current. I would never pay that $5 fee and it would never get caught by anyone at the office. There was no non-member processing going on there.

The idea that the PDGA needs $5 or $10 to process non-members is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the PDGA does not need the money. And I'm not disparaging the PDGA's efforts to to expand internationally and to make the Europeans and Asians feel a part of the PDGA by sending a PDGA representative to their majors. But lets be real about the non-member fee. That is all about revenue enhancement and nothing to do with the supposed cost to the PDGA of non-members playing our tournaments.

Tournaments attract new members to the PDGA. Tournaments sell the concept of joining to non-members. If we keep non-members away from our tournaments by charging them 50% more to play, we are driving away our main source of new members.

On the Electronic TD report linked from the TD tour info link on the home page contains a $5 fee tab that asks for:

FirstName
LastName
PDGA#
Address
City
State
Zip

On the Electronic TD report linked from the TD tour info link on the home page contains a $5 fee tab that asks for:

FirstName
LastName
PDGA#
Address
City
State
Zip



Yes, but is it mandatory, I've intended to do it but with everything it takes doing a tournament, I have found myself not doing it because it seemed optional

<font color="green"> copy/paste from 9-21-07 pdga board minutes..............

Temporary Tournament Fee For Nonmembers (Graham)
The current $5 fee is not sufficient to cover the added staff costs of processing
nonmembers and the risks undertaken by the PDGA and tournament directors.
Motion: (Shive) That the fee be raised to $10. (Andrews second)
Motion: (Decker) That the motion on the floor be tabled. (Andrews second)
For: Shive, Convers, Andrews, Decker
Against: Bellinger
Motion passed (4-2) </font>

Mr. Graham,

What are the risks? What is the actual cost? Why are you speaking on behalf of the TD's, where did that concensus come from?

Is it just that the board thinks that it's missing revenue for the PDGA?

I don't personally like the decision, however if it's openly explained I might be able to at least understand it

First Chuck Said:

One cost is determining if a non-member is really a non-member or a PDGA member. Every player is checked to determine if they are really a member, a member who has just renewed, a lapsed member or a new member that the TD didn't have their new PDGA number yet. With similar names like Bob Smith, it's not an insignificant process.



Then you said:

There isn't any place in it for address, phone #, e-mail, ect. that might be checked thru a data base and of course all of those things may change for any individual.



Then I countered with:

On the Electronic TD report linked from the TD tour info link on the home page contains a $5 fee tab that asks for:

FirstName
LastName
PDGA#
Address
City
State
Zip



To which you replied:

Yes, but is it mandatory, I've intended to do it but with everything it takes doing a tournament, I have found myself not doing it because it seemed optional



Which is not the question you asked, and also explains why it takes manual labor to try and determine if the John Smith entered on the report without a member number is ACTIVE member John Smith without number, or non-active member John Smith without number, or potential new member John Smith without number. If everyone filled out the information it would be much simpler to check.

In answer, it is not mandatory but is requested information that would make processing the report easier and quicker.

I'm kind of schizo on this issue. On the one hand, I realize that the extra fees will limit attendance and that is certainly bad. However, it pisses me off when I see members who have paid a larger fee get left out of tournaments while non-members get in for $5. It happens a lot around here. I also feel that if I have to pay for all the nebulous costs Chuck always mentions, then these people should also; or if I have to join to play such and such tourney, why should these guys get a break. I realize that most of these arguments are selfish and poorly grounded with the "If I am getting the shaft, so should they" mentality.

Just curious why a lot of people state that non-member fees should only be based on processing costs, but member fees can be based on all sorts of other things in addition to processing costs. Also, one could argue that it is a simple pricing strategy to encourage people to join. At $5, more people will opt out of membership and pay when they play. At $10, they are more likely to join. Processing costs are irrelevant.

I think Peter indicated the change was warranted primarily because the $5 fee hadn't changed in a long time while the member fees have been going up gradually. Whether the real cost to handle non-members is really 50 cents, $4 or $7, the new $10 fee keeps the cost in reference to the member fee and could be justified on that basis alone. One might say the Board should have raised the non-member fee by a $1 every time the member fee went up in the past decade. But the rounded off $5 and $10 values probably seemed easier with only one big change in 2008.

I do think a case could be made as to why the non-member fee for pros shouldn't be higher than the Am non-member fee since their member fees are different. In addition, it's too bad that the non-member fee couldn't perhaps be lower for the beginning Am divisions so it's not as high of a percentage of the entry fee maximums actually suggested by the PDGA in its guidelines. But I suspect a flat number like $10 is seen to just be "easier" for TDs to handle and communicate to entrants.

perhaps something a little extra for the $10 to introduce players to the pdga could offset this also, a decal, inexpensive mini and pdga literature provided to the nonmember for instance.

Brian Graham in an above post stated that the pdga was working on some type of benefits for the nonmember paying the $10

imo, this isn't going to hurt the pdga on a large scale, and more than likely be a financial boost for our organization, however in my area it may cut down on SN series players playing our dual PDGA/SN series events.

another idea would be to stagger the fee depending on division or tier like Chuck mentioned

I just hope that the Endowment Program will help this regional issue

I'm kind of schizo on this issue. On the one hand, I realize that the extra fees will limit attendance and that is certainly bad. However, it pisses me off when I see members who have paid a larger fee get left out of tournaments while non-members get in for $5. It happens a lot around here. I also feel that if I have to pay for all the nebulous costs Chuck always mentions, then these people should also; or if I have to join to play such and such tourney, why should these guys get a break. I realize that most of these arguments are selfish and poorly grounded with the "If I am getting the shaft, so should they" mentality.

Just curious why a lot of people state that non-member fees should only be based on processing costs, but member fees can be based on all sorts of other things in addition to processing costs. Also, one could argue that it is a simple pricing strategy to encourage people to join. At $5, more people will opt out of membership and pay when they play. At $10, they are more likely to join. Processing costs are irrelevant.



You raise an interesting point about non-members taking the place of members at a tournament. However, the remedy is not to increase the non-member fee to $10. The situation you describe is a wonderful one--- there are too many players. The sport is popular! In such a case it would make sense to consider a rule stating that in a sanctioned event that PDGA members have a priority on getting into the field. I think that is very reasonable. Non-members can only play if there are vacancies after the members are registered. I am not sure how this can be worked with preregistration. I suspect preregistration should still be first come first serve. Or, non-members can only be allowed to preregister within the last week or two weeks or whatever of the event or of the closing of preregistration. Or, open preregistration to members only a couple of weeks before it is open to non-members. However, on the day of the event the members should get priority and the non-members should be on the wait list. In such as case, as they say, "membership [still] has its privledges."

I think other posts have addressed the non-issue of costs. The current $5 temporary membership, as mentioned above, only gives the player the right to play that day. It gives the player no other benefit whatsoever. Thus, what cost is there? Members get stuff, temporary members get the right to play on the day in question.

Raising the non-member fee to $10 does add money to the organizatioon. I have no problem with that. However, it raises a signrficant risk that members (such as myself) will have less sanctioned events in which to play. That is bad.

Raising the non memb. fee seems based upon two things.
1. Charging 20% of the membership fee to non-members.
($50 annual memb. $10 non-memb./tourney)

2. There has been no fee increase in years and
$10 is a round number

These non members do not get a magazine.
Should that 20% figure be based upon $40? -- $8
How about basing it on $35? -- $7

I realize these are not round numbers.
The last time I checked the one dollar bill is still in circulation.
Is it only about making easy $ change during sign-up?

Doubling the non member price is a bitter pill.

steve timm

I think your idea has merit, but only if members can be convinced to pre-register for an event. If members registered several weeks ahead of time it would be very easy to tell non-members that they need to go onto a waiting list, however, if a TD outlays multiple thousands of $$$ to make sure a tournament is properly covered, they will take any and all registerations as quickly as then can get them.

In my opinion, the cost for non-members went up to steeply. If you look at the general population of the non-registered, most of them come from the recreational and the intermediate groups. Yes there are plenty of advanced and open players that are not registered, but most are beginner players. If you look at the tournament non-PDGA member fees going from $5 to $10, the increase in cost is going from an adder of about 1/6 the fee to about 1/4 to 1/3 of the fee. That is a big jump. I understand that membership fees have gone up, but won't this tend to push the beginning players away from the game?

It is common to have Juniors play rec or int if a junior division does not exist. I make every attempt to have a jr div, but I have seen plenty of TD's not have one. Now that young player that might pay around $20, with no fee if a Jr div is offered to around $40 or more if one is not. Just general numbers guys and gals.

There even may be TD's that decide to run two events on the same day/same time. One will be sanctioned for Open and Advanced (because most are either PDGA members or the % increase of fee is smaller) and one that is non-sanctioned for int and rec. This releives the TD of the responsibility to charge more and keep track of non-PDGA members, drops the general player fee, reduces the need to supply a player's package and in the long run may cost the PDGA more money in lost revenue. I really think the PDGA BOD should have polled TD's (and registered players) around the nation first.

Well, like any other dumb thing the PDGA has done, they can always undo it next year, or even mid-year. Those of us who actually run tournaments and are worried about this, I think, should give it a tournament or two and see how it plays out. If non-member attendance tanks at our tournaments, and if that isn't made up for by new members who joined to avoid paying $10 a tournament for nothing, then we should raise the issue again.

Where I live, the PDGA is not popular. Non-members outnumber members so PDGA sanctioning is not a viable option.



Russ, to my knowledge, the situation you describe, where nonmembers vastly outnumber PDGA members, exists all over the country. Here in Michigan it is just as you describe. It takes a certain kind of competitor or disc golf contributor to join the PDGA. Many disc golfers never will. However, those numbers are not equivalent to saying the PDGA is "not popular," per se.

After all, the homecoming queen is popular, but maybe not every guy can afford to date her. Some might not even want to, but she's still popular. :cool:

However, there are still many, many sanctioned events to choose from, and sanctioning is very popular with competitors. We have at least 3-4 unsanctioned events for every sanctioned event in Michigan, but a sanctioned event will out-draw anything but an especially interesting unsanctioned event.

It will be very interesting to see what effects the increase in the nonmember fee will have. Here in the Ann Arbor area, it comes simultaneously with our best courses - at Hudson Mills Metroparks - going pay to play: $2/day or an annual disc golf pass for $50/yr, on top of the cost already for a day or annual pass for park entry.

I should know this but what is the non-member attendance breakdown? Past looks at tournaments left me with the impression that relatively speaking it was pretty low. I just flipped through three or four tournaments and one looked about 40% non-member but the other two were over 95% members (one was completely member) Is this really an issue, are we going to affect TDs in a significant way?

Chuck?

Sandalman probably has easier access to this info. I don't have access to the database to see what it shows.

The logic around having a "round number" non-member fee divisible by 5 kind of breaks down when you consider entry fees can include PDGA fees, series fees, greens fees or Ace pool of varying amounts.

Sandalman probably has easier access to this info. I don't have access to the database to see what it shows.



Pat?

Part of the "pain" of ponying up a fee like this is how you label it and sell it to the playing public. When you say "Oh - you're not a member - that'll be $10 additional dollars for you to play" - that comes off a whole lot different than if you say "If you were a member - you'd qualify for a $10 discount off the posted entry fee!" How you label things has a significant impact on how they are perceived (sort of like the whole "Am" vs "Pro" fiasco).

The percent of non-members can be radically different even in close geographical proximity. Two IL sanctioned tournaments on back to back weekends about 15 miles apart with similar size Rec fields: One had 80% non-members in the Rec division, the other had 37%.

I understand the reasoning behind the PDGA suggestion to word the non-member fee the way you described. I even support it, but it still boils down to non-members paying $10 and they know it. Its been worded that way to them for years now. Really, I think if everyone changed the wording to the more positive form, non-members would feel like the PDGA was trying to get something by them. "Do they think we are dumb?" they might say.

And, some members would be confused. To avoid confusion, I just word it the usual way. If I get any questions, I usually tell them to be lucky the PDGA hasnt made them become a full member to play any sanctioned event. They usually shrug, drop down an extra $5, then forget about it 10 seconds later.

If we are indeed going to $10 non-member fee, I would like to give them something. A rulebook perhaps?

I think this is an excellent idea. Then they see there is an organization, not just a nebulous group that charges them for no obvious benefit.


If we are indeed going to $10 non-member fee, I would like to give them something. A rulebook perhaps?

Part of the "pain" of ponying up a fee like this is how you label it and sell it to the playing public. When you say "Oh - you're not a member - that'll be $10 additional dollars for you to play" - that comes off a whole lot different than if you say "If you were a member - you'd qualify for a $10 discount off the posted entry fee!" How you label things has a significant impact on how they are perceived (sort of like the whole "Am" vs "Pro" fiasco).

I don't know if our non-members are that stupid. Maybe non-members are slower in Maryland.

Part of the "pain" of ponying up a fee like this is how you label it and sell it to the playing public. When you say "Oh - you're not a member - that'll be $10 additional dollars for you to play" - that comes off a whole lot different than if you say "If you were a member - you'd qualify for a $10 discount off the posted entry fee!" How you label things has a significant impact on how they are perceived (sort of like the whole "Am" vs "Pro" fiasco).

I don't know if our non-members are that stupid. Maybe non-members are slower in Maryland.



I suspect you're wrong Bruce. There's a reason why companies spend multiples of billions of dollars on marketing every year, it works, even in IL. Perception is important and Craig makes not only a valid point, but an important one.

Let me give you an example. Great marketing and strong positioning has led many Americans to doubt the notion that Global Warming is being affected by human beings. Some are positively dogmatic in their positioning on this. Yet the science is absolutely clear. There is a preponderance of data showing that we're affecting Global Warming.

Some of the issue is what people want to believe. If I want to believe the PDGA is taking advantage of me, then no matter how you state it, they're stealing my $10. If I'm neutral or coming from most other directions, having the PDGA point out that the $10 is a good thing will at least partially convince me.

I don't know if our non-members are that stupid. Maybe non-members are slower in Maryland.


Not so fast, Bruce. According to Morgan Quitno Press�s Education State Rankings, 2006-2007, Maryland is the 18th smartest state, while Michigan is a quite dull 39th. So, statistically, your non-members are quite a bit more stupid than those in Maryland. :o

BTW - Virginia is 6th smartest. :cool:

I don't know if our non-members are that stupid. Maybe non-members are slower in Maryland.


Not so fast, Bruce. According to Morgan Quitno Press�s Education State Rankings, 2006-2007, Maryland is the 18th smartest state, while Michigan is a quite dull 39th. So, statistically, your non-members are quite a bit more stupid than those in Maryland. :o

BTW - Virginia is 6th smartest. :cool:



Should I guess where Texas lies in that? :D

He is correct, media extravagance and political agenda has also convinced many that man is responsible for global warming, regardless of the fact that global temperatures are constantly cycling...... :p


Let me give you an example. Great marketing and strong positioning has led many Americans to doubt the notion that Global Warming is being affected by human beings.

Sandalman probably has easier access to this info. I don't have access to the database to see what it shows.



registered players in 2007 who have PDGA numbers: 45,963
registered players in 2007 who do not have PDGA numbers: 9,996

total players so far in 2007: 55,959
percent that have pdganumbers: 82.14%
percent that do not have pdga numbers: 17.86%

Temporary Membership Fee (Graham):
Motion (Shive): To raise the temporary membership fee to $10 per event (Convers second).


Amendment (Brenner): To include new elements of membership value to temporary members (Dodge second).
For (amendment): Brenner, Dodge
Against: Decker, Andrews, Convers, Bellinger, Shive
Amendment fails 2-5


For (original motion): Bellinger, Convers, Shive, Decker, Andrews
Against: Dodge, Brenner
Motion passes 5-2


Action item: The staff will look into membership value options that could be offered to nonmembers and present them by the November teleconference.

Pat,

Can you remove events such super tour or A tier that require membership to play? Thanks.

So, can you easily get at how many of those with PDGA numbers were not current when they played?

Actually, can you access how much has been collected in $5 fees this year or would that be one of those non-public detail numbers?

Pat,

Can you remove events such super tour or A tier that require membership to play? Thanks.

if you will be very specific about what you want included i probably can. especially if it ties directly to tier.

Include Bs, Cs, Ds, BXs, CXs, DXs, and every permutation thereof. Exclude Ms, NTs and As, because those tournaments have no non-members in them anyway.

So, can you easily get at how many of those with PDGA numbers were not current when they played?

no. "current" is in the status field and has no history, so the status at a given moment is not known. bottom line is we only know the current status, not when they became that status.

Pat,

Can you remove events such super tour or A tier that require membership to play? Thanks.

multiply the number on non-pdganumber players by $5 and you should be close. its not restricted info, cuz you can get it from the PDGA tour pages.

So non-member fees collected divided by 5 divided by the total player count excluding M, NT, A and D tiers would equal the average percentage of non-member participation globally.

Include Bs, Cs, Ds, BXs, CXs, DXs, and every permutation thereof. Exclude Ms, NTs and As, because those tournaments have no non-members in them anyway.



for events not A,M or NT tiers, in 2007
total players: 43,934
players w/ numbers: 34,020 (77.4%)
players w/o numbers: 9,925 (22.6%)

Sandalman probably has easier access to this info. I don't have access to the database to see what it shows.



registered players in 2007 who have PDGA numbers: 45,963
registered players in 2007 who do not have PDGA numbers: 9,996

total players so far in 2007: 55,959
percent that have pdganumbers: 82.14%
percent that do not have pdga numbers: 17.86%



Thanks Pat

He is correct, media extravagance and political agenda has also convinced many that man is responsible for global warming, regardless of the fact that global temperatures are constantly cycling...... :p


Let me give you an example. Great marketing and strong positioning has led many Americans to doubt the notion that Global Warming is being affected by human beings.





Thanks for demonstrating my point exactly!

So Bruce, you can clearly see how good marketing can lead to positions. Regardless of whether you or Alacrity are correct, or I am correct, good marketing, one way or the other has led to a strong perception and opinion. I'd guess, that similar opinions can be molded in terms of the PDGA and non-membership fees.

In this case, the PDGA is acting essentially in a vacuum, that is, there is no "liberal" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif media to mold a negative impression. The few dissenting voices simply don't have the power that the PDGA has to mold the opinion of those participating. Please don't get me wrong, the PDGA's power isn't huge, just unchallenged by any meaningful voice.

BTW - at least to me, it appears by these numbers that this is a pretty big hit, one you'd not want to jeopardize. Pat, what benefits were you considering in your rejected motion?

Part of the "pain" of ponying up a fee like this is how you label it and sell it to the playing public. When you say "Oh - you're not a member - that'll be $10 additional dollars for you to play" - that comes off a whole lot different than if you say "If you were a member - you'd qualify for a $10 discount off the posted entry fee!" How you label things has a significant impact on how they are perceived (sort of like the whole "Am" vs "Pro" fiasco).

I don't know if our non-members are that stupid. Maybe non-members are slower in Maryland.



It's just one of those "best practices" things you do as a TD Bruce. Just like when big events have dated cutoffs and late fees - if the flyer says - "discount if entry received by" instead of "late fee if received after" - it's generally better received - and actually yields some of the desired effect of getting people pre-registered early! Same thing with how you present costs associated w/entry fee. If you perceive and present the fees as a penalty as opposed to an opportunity - of course they will be perceived negatively. But then why sanction an event at all if you're not willing to promote the sanctioning body? How hard is it to say to the new guy - " Hey we run events all year - the biggest ones are sanctioned and you need to be a member to play - the smaller ones are more affordable and you don't have to join - but there are some perks to membership. Take your pick - here's a membership form."

Temporary Tournament Fee For Nonmembers (Graham)
The current $5 fee is not sufficient to cover the added staff costs of processing
nonmembers and the risks undertaken by the PDGA and tournament directors.
Motion: (Shive) That the fee be raised to $10. (Andrews second)
Motion: (Decker) That the motion on the floor be tabled. (Andrews second)
For: Shive, Convers, Andrews, Decker
Against: Bellinger
Motion passed (4-2) </font>

Mr. Graham,

What are the risks? What is the actual cost? Why are you speaking on behalf of the TD's, where did that concensus come from?

Is it just that the board thinks that it's missing revenue for the PDGA?

I don't personally like the decision, however if it's openly explained I might be able to at least understand it



The name in parentheses next to the agenda item in the board minutes is the person who is presenting the information on that subject and not necessarily the person saying everything that is recorded. In this particular case, it does take the office more time and more money to process a non-member than it does to process a member and I did present that information to the BOD.

I am not speaking for all tournament directors but it should be pointed out that I have been a TD for 17 years and I have only been the ED for 7 months. The members fees have been raised several times over the years while the non-members fee has not increased in 20+ years. Is it fair for the members to continue to bear all of the costs of promoting our sport while the non-members benefit at a fraction of the price? It should be noted that the office is currently working to put together a package of benefits for non-members who compete in our sanctioned events. I would not feel comfortable with raising prices without providing some increased benefits. It should also be noted that areas of the country with a low percentage of members, will be eligible to apply for a competition endowment that will reduce these non-member fees and make it worthwhile to sanction an event.

I have mixed emotions on the subject but strictly from a business standpoint, I feel that the fee raise is justifiable. The association has to cover our costs but we do not want to discourage sanctioned events in developing areas.


Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Craig has hit the nail on the head with this one. I have abandoned the "Non PDGA members add $5" in favor of "PDGA members get a $5 discount" it's a helluva lot easier to give $5 back than it is to take an extra $5. I like "building" the $5 fee into the entry fee. I only ask if they are members, if they aren't, end of discussion. If they are they get some money back, this has really helped ease the headaches that were the grumblings from non members.

I still would like to see an am membership awarded at PDGA events, is this a viable option at all? That would be hundreds of new members a year, I can't see any downside to this at all. Are there any? Has this been considered?

I have thought for years that it would be smart of the PDGA to require, as part of the sanctioning agreement, for this to be built into the registration fee and labeled as a PDGA member discount.

The primary snag from a TD admin standpoint with the discount is the entry form ends up with plus and minus figures on it for adding up. Ace fund is almost always going to be an optional plus (unless it's included) and the PDGA member discount an optional minus. I agree that promoting the $10 as a member discount is superior marketing. Several MN TDs had been doing that since the early 90s since the MFA has a $5 member discount or NM fee. But lately, I've seen most of our TDs have taken the easy road and now just tack on the $5 non-MFA fee.

The problem with building the non-member fee into the entry fee is in calculating the event value. Is 100% payout based on total entry fees? If so, then what happens when a nice chunk of that is sent to the PDGA for non-members? Yeah the TD might understand how it goes, but the players probably won't get it.

I don't think some players can calculate it now at some events with other fees embedded like course development and series fees. But the TD report would handle all of that.

think of it as the PDGA cashing at every event :)

My problem with it is it's dishonest. That's just me. I don't like to lie about what we're doing.

It might not feel dishonest if the difference for members vs non-members was changed to a discount percentage like 15% rather than a fixed number. But then TDs would be all over the map on figuring out entry fees before discount and how much that was.

Honestly, just how many "non-members" are participating in PDGA events? I suspect it's not many in areas where the PDGA is strong. In certain parts of the Southeast, there are many more non-members.

So Brian, please PM me about how to go about applying for an endowment. We had talked about running a PDGA event here (none since 2003), but this fee increase has turned me off completely. Thanks, rWc****

Russ, from upthread:

for events not A,M or NT tiers, in 2007
total players: 43,934
players w/ numbers: 34,020 (77.4%)
players w/o numbers: 9,925 (22.6%)

Russ, from upthread:

for events not A,M or NT tiers, in 2007
total players: 43,934
players w/ numbers: 34,020 (77.4%)
players w/o numbers: 9,925 (22.6%)



See Pat,

It's not just me who ignores your hard work. Thanks again, this was incredibly informative!

Bruce, I always have to laugh when a lawyer talks about dishonesty. The very nature of being a lawyer often ignores issues of honesty in the name of legality.

What is dishonest about pointing out that being a member has benefits? Indeed it does, $5 off, sorry $10 off when you play PDGA events.

Sam's does this, CostCo does this, Kroger, Randalls, the list is beyond big. I suspect that your feelings that this is dishonest has more to do with your relationship with the PDGA than with any dishonesty. And remember, players in IL are to smart too be fooled by such a simple ruse anyway.

Is it fair for the members to continue to bear all of the costs of promoting our sport while the non-members benefit at a fraction of the price? It should be noted that the office is currently working to put together a package of benefits for non-members who compete in our sanctioned events. I would not feel comfortable with raising prices without providing some increased benefits. It should also be noted that areas of the country with a low percentage of members, will be eligible to apply for a competition endowment that will reduce these non-member fees and make it worthwhile to sanction an event.



...so... there will be discounted fees available to some parts of the country but not others just not across the board but through some trumped up application process. why should the membership in Virginia have to subsidize PDGA events in Alabama or Connecticut? i'm personally not that altruistic. i find it greatly disappointing that the board has come up with an increase in non-member fees for the rest of us to deal with and a discount for those in areas who have traditionally [censored] on the shoes of the pdga rather than an inexpensive membership option applicable across the board.

Before the creation of the PDGA Electronic TD report, I would take entries as take a $5.00 discount for being a PDGA member. Now that I use the electronic report, it is far easier to add the non-member fee. This way the payouts are all set and calculated for me without having to adjust anything. In other words it is easier for me to "charge extra" than to "provide a discount". The PDGA report has really simplified things for the TD. No more pulling out tables and calculators, just input basic information and the rest is done for you.

Call me lazy if you want, but it is simply one less item for me to worry about come event time.

...so... there will be discounted fees available to some parts of the country but not others just not across the board but through some trumped up application process. why should the membership in Virginia have to subsidize PDGA events in Alabama or Connecticut?



It sounds like the program is available to everyone who applies and qualifies regardless where they come from. It's been pointed out that even in high PDGA membership areas that there are new pockets of growth with few PDGA members so far that might want to apply. If you think about it, the benefits of PDGA membership feed on itself the more members there already are in an area. If an event has three non-members out of 65, they are more likely to join to join their neighbors or not feel bad about the $10 non-member fee. However, if 80% of the players are non-members, then the benefits of joining are lower since there may be few PDGA events within 200 miles. It's just human nature that requires accounting for those fees a different way in some areas.

Biscoe, as a TD don't you think you benefit by having a large base of PDGA players versus areas that don't? You're a player also, not just a TD. That's partly due to work long ago from other TDs in your area when the PDGA wasn't as widespread. Even if other areas use more grants than your area, it will help your area indirectly by the fact they have PDGA events at all. If they have no events, even the smaller amount they will pay won't be coming into the PDGA.

Chuck, I'd like some information on the grant application process if it's available. If not, I'd like it as soon as it is. Problem is, our major event is in March. That doesn't leave much time to work with the PDGA, but we would consider it for a summer event.

Biscoe, in case you didn't know, there are areas of the southeast where people have a blast playing disc golf tournaments that are NOT PDGA sanctioned.

i know it very well russ. it occurs here too. i run one of the most talked about/anticipated events (VTI) in this area of the country as an unsanctioned event each year. it is not an original idea that unsanctioned events can be successful. i simply do not see what possible justification there is for a reduced fee structure available to only SOME of the membership. frankly, i could care less whether events in alabama are sanctioned or not. if there is not enough value in joining the pdga/playing pdga events then that is a problem which needs to be addressed by the organization across the board rather than attempting to "bribe" players in certain areas with reductions not available to everyone.

in my perfect world there would be no temporary memberships but a low cost annual membership instead for $10-$15 which got you a number and a rating and nothing else.

Biscoe, in case you didn't know, there are areas of the southeast where people have a blast playing disc golf tournaments that are NOT PDGA sanctioned.


The problem is selectively giving those folks a financial break to play PDGA events, while continuing to hoover out of the pockets of similar folks playing similar events in other areas of the country not lucky enough to have a "pork barrel" supporter in the PDGA brass.

"cold hoovering" :D :D

Biscoe, in case you didn't know, there are areas of the southeast where people have a blast playing disc golf tournaments that are NOT PDGA sanctioned.


The problem is selectively giving those folks a financial break to play PDGA events, while continuing to hoover out of the pockets of similar folks playing similar events in other areas of the country not lucky enough to have a "pork barrel" supporter in the PDGA brass.



Or areas that have TDs that are 'holding the line' and promoting the PDGA in light of the fee and membership increases instead of coming forward asking for a reduction.

Perhaps its time to work on getting our non-membership participation percentage increased so we can be considered for the fee reduction? It is almost membership renewal time, so it can be done.

Chuck, I'd like some information on the grant application process if it's available.



Haven't seen the draft or final yet. I'm thinking that Gentry might circulate it to the Competition Committee before it's published but maybe it will go straight to the TD docs for 2008 based on deadlines. I don't know.

hmmm.... good idea tim. if no one around here renews we too can get reduced fees!!!

Biscoe, I like your idea for lower fees. People can say what they want, but many people don't like paying $40-$50 to join the PDGA. At least around here. A $15 or $20 fee would work. Our club dues are $20 and we have no problem getting members, of course they get a T-shirt and bag tag for their money. A lot of people here don't see a benefit of joining the PDGA, especially when they have a regional touring series to compete in. Honestly, we're very happy here with what we're doing. I have no issue with the PDGA, but really, because of where I live I would not join if not for the few PDGA events that are very close to me. But $50 a pop for three people in my family, PLUS entry fees and other tournament expeneses, really adds up. And please, I don't want anyone to tell me if I can't afford it, don't play. Point is, We have an alternative that fills the need for competitive disc golf in our region. But I do think more people around my area would join if the dues were lower.

"cold hoovering" :D :D


w3rd!!!!!! :p

in my perfect world there would be no temporary memberships but a low cost annual membership instead for $10-$15 which got you a number and a rating and nothing else.


ding ding ding!!!

For many Ams, that is all they want. The biggest problem with this proposal, is that you would severely drop the number of full price AM memberships taken. If you made this a halfsy membership where they paid an extra $5/tourney instead of the $10 non-member fee, you might have something viable that doesn't dilute the income to the PDGA.

anyone got any idea when we may see these?

Mr. John B

Yes it would be nice to know some details.
I am getting heat from NEFA snowbirds .
They want to attend a warm southern tourney.
We want to/will offer them a great time.

Just can't get any info from HQ.
The official word is -
"Details are still being finalized"

frustrated
steve timm
td New Orleans Pot of Gold
March 15, 2008

Yeah, that makes it kinda hard to plan. Our event will noww be on the same date to avoid Easter. It's not like we're close enough to each other to make a difference. Ya gotta love these canned answers from HQ. I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with the PDGA and actually, organized disc golf in general. Time to go back to having fun again. Good luck Steve. You deserve a lot of credit just trying to work with these people and taking all the crap from our fellow SN players. later, rWc****

PDGA Endowment Program details may be viewed here (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/CompetitionEndowmentProgramDetails.pdf)

Right in time for Ice Bowls

Where are you, Biscoe? I wait with bated breath to read your analysis &amp; critique of this cunning "points" system that the PDGA has devised to flimsily mask the fact that this is purely a region-based grant earmarked for "developing areas" to the exclusion of historic PDGA hotbeds (aka NEFA pork-barrel legislation).

Please weigh in.

whenever i go to the mission statement for guidance, i find as much emphasis on disc golf in general than on member services. in its current form, the mission statement seems to direct the PDGA towards serving ALL of disc golf, not just members. to this point, focusing the endowment program towards developing areas is the best way to meet the goals of the mission statement.

Judging by the number of events, some of the developing areas are, in fact, quite developed.

hmmm.. good point

my initial questions-
1. what is the minimum charitable donation to be allowed to use the charity side of the program? is it the player fees and nothing else? if this is the case ALL c tier events should do it.

2. define "areas that do not have a strong pdga presence" (this one is the real can o' worms)

my initial questions-
1. what is the minimum charitable donation to be allowed to use the charity side of the program? is it the player fees and nothing else? if this is the case ALL c tier events should do it.





all pdga fees donated must be matched by the tournament, thus a reason that most events may not want to do this.

Charity part of the Competition Endowment Program If it's done under a "C tier type" sanctioning that's only $2 per player to the PDGA which they turn around and give to the charity, matching makes it $4 complete, per player, going to the Tourney's charity, with no non-member fees

has to be a 501c3 charity

sanctioning fee is $25, insurance is still available if needed/wanted for $50

this sounds incredibly reasonable

personally I'd have no desire to try the "Under Developed Area" part of it and in the past Arkansas has been considered "Under Developed", i.e. no PDGA Tourneys in 03', been having 4 to 6 a year since, I have no idea what current membership levels for my state has been in the past, we're running 55 current members as of now

I'd imagine that "Under Development" must be based upon membership &amp; or tournament numbers??

The $10 fee is waived, but may be collected by the TD donated to the charity along with the $2 PDGA fees.

My question comes in at when you exceed $350 in nonmember fees alone. do the first 35 get in free and the rest have to pay, and at that time is anything donated to charity from the $2 PDGA fees ?

It rarely happened last year the there would be 35 non-members at a sanctioned event, but this is pushing for sanctioned events in areas that may have a strong DG presence, but not a strong PDGA presence. It may be very easy to exceed 35 non members at a single event.

Gary

Your point about exceeding 35 non members
in underdeveloped (pDGA) areas is valid.
The program will impact the small events.

steve timm