Interesting data on 2014 AMA Financial/tax statement
08-23-2016, 11:36 AM
#226
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
It is what it is....a membership Benefit. Use it or don't, but theres no corresponding discount for not using it. So far one candidate for change is suggesting no change when it comes to the magazine. Can't disagree there. If you really feel as though it will save the ama money, and you don't like the mag antway, just stop getting it and consider this a "donation" to the cause.
08-23-2016, 11:53 AM
#228
It is what it is....a membership Benefit. Use it or don't, but theres no corresponding discount for not using it. So far one candidate for change is suggesting no change when it comes to the magazine. Can't disagree there. If you really feel as though it will save the ama money, and you don't like the mag antway, just stop getting it and consider this a "donation" to the cause.
However, if you believe the CFO's comments in the latest minutes, the ones about being discretionary and facing a good chance of a recession, then it seems that all spending should get a hard look. Especially something that amounts for more than 1/4 of all expenditures.
08-23-2016, 11:54 AM
#229
However, even if 50% of the membership declined the magazine and the print orders were cut in half it would probably still loose money.
I'd like to see the number of members currently "opting out" of receiving the magazine.
A million dollar loss on a magazine should be a big deal to most . Just nuke the printed magazine and keep it online.
08-23-2016, 12:07 PM
#230
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Exactly ! Opting out of the magazine should represent a savings to those members. I for one am tired of subsidizing for others....in this case paying for someone else's printed magazine. If you want to hold a magazine in your hand then pay for it yourself!
However, even if 50% of the membership declined the magazine and the print orders were cut in half it would probably still loose money.
I'd like to see the number of members currently "opting out" of receiving the magazine.
A million dollar loss on a magazine should be a big deal to most . Just nuke the printed magazine and keep it online.
However, even if 50% of the membership declined the magazine and the print orders were cut in half it would probably still loose money.
I'd like to see the number of members currently "opting out" of receiving the magazine.
A million dollar loss on a magazine should be a big deal to most . Just nuke the printed magazine and keep it online.
Out of curiosity if it turns out the magazine is a profit center for them...should it still be "nuked" because some folks don't like it?
08-23-2016, 12:18 PM
#231
I know, I said my "one post", but this is one that I think is going to need a second.
Going back to my roots, that being boating, NAMBA and IMPBA both have magazines, NAMBA has their Propwash while IMPBA has their Roostertail. Both are benefits to members but, at the same time, are also available on the organization's website for anyone that want's it. Even on line, they sell R/C boating related advertising to cover the costs of maintaining the website as well as printing for anyone that wants it. Why can't the EC of the AMA do the same? To me, it only makes sense since it's self-supporting and easily available. Could it be that the boaters can do so since their heads aren't up in the clouds? Just a thought, considering that yearly dues for NAMBA are only $50
Here's a link to NAMBA's Propwash, if any one's interested:
http://www.namba.com/content/library...sh/2016/April/
Going back to my roots, that being boating, NAMBA and IMPBA both have magazines, NAMBA has their Propwash while IMPBA has their Roostertail. Both are benefits to members but, at the same time, are also available on the organization's website for anyone that want's it. Even on line, they sell R/C boating related advertising to cover the costs of maintaining the website as well as printing for anyone that wants it. Why can't the EC of the AMA do the same? To me, it only makes sense since it's self-supporting and easily available. Could it be that the boaters can do so since their heads aren't up in the clouds? Just a thought, considering that yearly dues for NAMBA are only $50
Here's a link to NAMBA's Propwash, if any one's interested:
http://www.namba.com/content/library...sh/2016/April/
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 08-23-2016 at 12:22 PM.
08-23-2016, 01:31 PM
#232
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I know, I said my "one post", but this is one that I think is going to need a second.
Going back to my roots, that being boating, NAMBA and IMPBA both have magazines, NAMBA has their Propwash while IMPBA has their Roostertail. Both are benefits to members but, at the same time, are also available on the organization's website for anyone that want's it. Even on line, they sell R/C boating related advertising to cover the costs of maintaining the website as well as printing for anyone that wants it. Why can't the EC of the AMA do the same? To me, it only makes sense since it's self-supporting and easily available. Could it be that the boaters can do so since their heads aren't up in the clouds? Just a thought, considering that yearly dues for NAMBA are only $50
Here's a link to NAMBA's Propwash, if any one's interested:
http://www.namba.com/content/library...sh/2016/April/
Going back to my roots, that being boating, NAMBA and IMPBA both have magazines, NAMBA has their Propwash while IMPBA has their Roostertail. Both are benefits to members but, at the same time, are also available on the organization's website for anyone that want's it. Even on line, they sell R/C boating related advertising to cover the costs of maintaining the website as well as printing for anyone that wants it. Why can't the EC of the AMA do the same? To me, it only makes sense since it's self-supporting and easily available. Could it be that the boaters can do so since their heads aren't up in the clouds? Just a thought, considering that yearly dues for NAMBA are only $50
Here's a link to NAMBA's Propwash, if any one's interested:
http://www.namba.com/content/library...sh/2016/April/
I don't do the online MA edition, so not 100% sure but presume they also sell advertising space there as well that probably goes towards the costs associated with the site. Electronic is no doubt the cheapest way to go out of the two methods, and ultimately may be the best way for them to get their message out. I don't think we're at that point as a membership yet however. I doubt however the AMA is losing a million dollars a year on this magazine and keeps pouring money into it just to keep it in paper form, That would make no sense.
08-23-2016, 01:31 PM
#233
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, I said my "one post", but this is one that I think is going to need a second.
Going back to my roots, that being boating, NAMBA and IMPBA both have magazines, NAMBA has their Propwash while IMPBA has their Roostertail. Both are benefits to members but, at the same time, are also available on the organization's website for anyone that want's it. Even on line, they sell R/C boating related advertising to cover the costs of maintaining the website as well as printing for anyone that wants it. Why can't the EC of the AMA do the same? To me, it only makes sense since it's self-supporting and easily available. Could it be that the boaters can do so since their heads aren't up in the clouds? Just a thought, considering that yearly dues for NAMBA are only $50
Here's a link to NAMBA's Propwash, if any one's interested:
http://www.namba.com/conRtent/library/propwash/2016/April/
Going back to my roots, that being boating, NAMBA and IMPBA both have magazines, NAMBA has their Propwash while IMPBA has their Roostertail. Both are benefits to members but, at the same time, are also available on the organization's website for anyone that want's it. Even on line, they sell R/C boating related advertising to cover the costs of maintaining the website as well as printing for anyone that wants it. Why can't the EC of the AMA do the same? To me, it only makes sense since it's self-supporting and easily available. Could it be that the boaters can do so since their heads aren't up in the clouds? Just a thought, considering that yearly dues for NAMBA are only $50
Here's a link to NAMBA's Propwash, if any one's interested:
http://www.namba.com/conRtent/library/propwash/2016/April/
I thumb through MA every month find a thing or two I read than it's off to the shop to mix epoxy on.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-23-2016 at 01:33 PM.
08-23-2016, 01:41 PM
#234
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I'm a member of the NAR ( National Association of Rocketry.) we have a magazine also but sent quarterly. It's got good content along with the normal ads and such. Could the AMA do the same? maybe save a few bucks?
I thumb through MA every month find a thing or two I read than it's off to the shop to mix epoxy on.
Mike
I thumb through MA every month find a thing or two I read than it's off to the shop to mix epoxy on.
Mike
08-23-2016, 04:20 PM
#236
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You mean the numbers from two years ago that one or two people have latched onto, even though they don't have the full information? If those are the numbers your talking about, then ya, I'll wait for the experts to opine on them. Probably the best bet right, rather then taking one number and running with it. That's my opinion, which I believe I'm entitled to just as others with theirs right?
08-23-2016, 04:38 PM
#237
You mean the numbers from two years ago that one or two people have latched onto, even though they don't have the full information? If those are the numbers your talking about, then ya, I'll wait for the experts to opine on them. Probably the best bet right, rather then taking one number and running with it. That's my opinion, which I believe I'm entitled to just as others with theirs right?
Since I am sure you would rather spend your time discussing real numbers, would you please either refute the numbers that were posted and post the REAL numbers? If you do not know if the posted numbers are bogus, then please state that for the record, too. Just because you have a hard time believing that the AMA rag is losing (or lost in 2014) $1M a year, does not give you the right to spout off that someone posted questionable figures. Pretty irresponsible, really.
Please clarify your facts/position on this one.
Regards,
Astro
08-23-2016, 05:09 PM
#238
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If in fact it's losing money than that needs to be addressed and when the 2015 financials hit we'll have a good idea what's what. As for me I believe that we need a newsletter or magazine of some sort. Quarterly works for me and would save money ( I think) now as far as the districts keeping members informed monthly what about a monthly newsletter? There's all kinds of ways to communicate things to the members and save money doing it.
Mike
Mike
08-23-2016, 05:34 PM
#240
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Yes, those are the numbers I was referring to. So far it seems we've established that they are from two years ago. I don't see how that changes them? Are you saying those are bogus numbers? You keep suggesting that they are bogus, but will not outright call them bogus. I assumed they came directly from the AMA, but did not go verify them myself (shame on me?).
Since I am sure you would rather spend your time discussing real numbers, would you please either refute the numbers that were posted and post the REAL numbers? If you do not know if the posted numbers are bogus, then please state that for the record, too. Just because you have a hard time believing that the AMA rag is losing (or lost in 2014) $1M a year, does not give you the right to spout off that someone posted questionable figures. Pretty irresponsible, really.
Please clarify your facts/position on this one.
Regards,
Astro
Since I am sure you would rather spend your time discussing real numbers, would you please either refute the numbers that were posted and post the REAL numbers? If you do not know if the posted numbers are bogus, then please state that for the record, too. Just because you have a hard time believing that the AMA rag is losing (or lost in 2014) $1M a year, does not give you the right to spout off that someone posted questionable figures. Pretty irresponsible, really.
Please clarify your facts/position on this one.
Regards,
Astro
In retrospect, I may be completely wrong. This "rag" has been losing money every year. Millions even. Every year. Money continues to be poured into it at a significant loss, and nobody has ever realized this until the 2014 official "IRS" records were discovered, in 2016. Prior to that, the President, everyone of the DVPs (rotating), the auditors, and most importantly the CFO has turned a blind eye to it or been snookered (but by whom?). Boy, wouldn't you think Tougas would have taken something like this and used it as a pretty solid basis for his campaign of CHANGE! Can't you see it now....look at all the money the AMA has wasted, the millions and millions of dollars on that rag. I have a plan to stop all that, vote me in, I'll change the way things are done. We'll go back to traditional modeling, without the magazine! Alas, not a peep out of him about financial losses or the magazine. Tiano has weighed in on the issue too....probably not as expected though.
Folks have glommed on to one number, in one period of time, and without having all the other numbers analyzed, want to focus on this and have yet another issue to rally around to show how bad the AMA is, how horrible the leadership is, how our money is wasted. etc etc etc. It's a constant and repeated pattern, with a new and different topic each time. Eventually it will die off when the next Lapel Pin scandal erupts, or the grass cutting bill for Muncie is presented, or a web page has a broken link, 0r only 87 kids show up for a STEM project (pathetic I believe was noted) etc etc. Listen, it's entertaining and interesting reading, who can deny that? Like scanning the Enquirer at the check out lane.
I think no matter what I say, you won't find the answer you're looking for from me. So I'll say it again....when I have something in front of me from an accountant, a tax specialist, or anyone who is familiar and well versed in finances (like say a CFO), rather than one or two people online, then I'll be in a better position to provide even more clarity on "my position". Seems reasonable right, the word of an expert rather than the theories of one or two folks online? No doubt they are a "real" set of numbers, they were on a form right? Still not enough for me to say one way or another what the total picture is. But boy will I ever have egg on my face when it comes to light that a million dollars a year have been lost. Ouch!
If you accept the numbers as presented, that's cool too. What's the rush in trying to reach a conclusion that's not fully supported...or asked another way, what's wrong with waiting for a full report?
08-23-2016, 05:44 PM
#241
LoL...AMA "rag".
In retrospect, I may be completely wrong. This "rag" has been losing money every year. Millions even. Every year. Money continues to be poured into it at a significant loss, and nobody has ever realized this until the 2014 official "IRS" records were discovered, in 2016. Prior to that, the President, everyone of the DVPs (rotating), the auditors, and most importantly the CFO has turned a blind eye to it or been snookered (but by whom?). Boy, wouldn't you think Tougas would have taken something like this and used it as a pretty solid basis for his campaign of CHANGE! Can't you see it now....look at all the money the AMA has wasted, the millions and millions of dollars on that rag. I have a plan to stop all that, vote me in, I'll change the way things are done. We'll go back to traditional modeling, without the magazine! Alas, not a peep out of him about financial losses or the magazine. Tiano has weighed in on the issue too....probably not as expected though.
Folks have glommed on to one number, in one period of time, and without having all the other numbers analyzed, want to focus on this and have yet another issue to rally around to show how bad the AMA is, how horrible the leadership is, how our money is wasted. etc etc etc. It's a constant and repeated pattern, with a new and different topic each time. Eventually it will die off when the next Lapel Pin scandal erupts, or the grass cutting bill for Muncie is presented, or a web page has a broken link, 0r only 87 kids show up for a STEM project (pathetic I believe was noted) etc etc. Listen, it's entertaining and interesting reading, who can deny that? Like scanning the Enquirer at the check out lane.
I think no matter what I say, you won't find the answer you're looking for from me. So I'll say it again....when I have something in front of me from an accountant, a tax specialist, or anyone who is familiar and well versed in finances (like say a CFO), rather than one or two people online, then I'll be in a better position to provide even more clarity on "my position". Seems reasonable right, the word of an expert rather than the theories of one or two folks online? No doubt they are a "real" set of numbers, they were on a form right? Still not enough for me to say one way or another what the total picture is. But boy will I ever have egg on my face when it comes to light that a million dollars a year have been lost. Ouch!
If you accept the numbers as presented, that's cool too. What's the rush in trying to reach a conclusion that's not fully supported...or asked another way, what's wrong with waiting for a full report?
In retrospect, I may be completely wrong. This "rag" has been losing money every year. Millions even. Every year. Money continues to be poured into it at a significant loss, and nobody has ever realized this until the 2014 official "IRS" records were discovered, in 2016. Prior to that, the President, everyone of the DVPs (rotating), the auditors, and most importantly the CFO has turned a blind eye to it or been snookered (but by whom?). Boy, wouldn't you think Tougas would have taken something like this and used it as a pretty solid basis for his campaign of CHANGE! Can't you see it now....look at all the money the AMA has wasted, the millions and millions of dollars on that rag. I have a plan to stop all that, vote me in, I'll change the way things are done. We'll go back to traditional modeling, without the magazine! Alas, not a peep out of him about financial losses or the magazine. Tiano has weighed in on the issue too....probably not as expected though.
Folks have glommed on to one number, in one period of time, and without having all the other numbers analyzed, want to focus on this and have yet another issue to rally around to show how bad the AMA is, how horrible the leadership is, how our money is wasted. etc etc etc. It's a constant and repeated pattern, with a new and different topic each time. Eventually it will die off when the next Lapel Pin scandal erupts, or the grass cutting bill for Muncie is presented, or a web page has a broken link, 0r only 87 kids show up for a STEM project (pathetic I believe was noted) etc etc. Listen, it's entertaining and interesting reading, who can deny that? Like scanning the Enquirer at the check out lane.
I think no matter what I say, you won't find the answer you're looking for from me. So I'll say it again....when I have something in front of me from an accountant, a tax specialist, or anyone who is familiar and well versed in finances (like say a CFO), rather than one or two people online, then I'll be in a better position to provide even more clarity on "my position". Seems reasonable right, the word of an expert rather than the theories of one or two folks online? No doubt they are a "real" set of numbers, they were on a form right? Still not enough for me to say one way or another what the total picture is. But boy will I ever have egg on my face when it comes to light that a million dollars a year have been lost. Ouch!
If you accept the numbers as presented, that's cool too. What's the rush in trying to reach a conclusion that's not fully supported...or asked another way, what's wrong with waiting for a full report?
And once again, I asked for simple clarification of your "position" and (once again) you ramble on and on about other things without a whisper of a real answer.
Deflection, avoidance and spin.......classic Porcia, yet none of the substance you espouse that you bring to these discussions.
Astro
08-23-2016, 05:46 PM
#242
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If in fact it's losing money than that needs to be addressed and when the 2015 financials hit we'll have a good idea what's what. As for me I believe that we need a newsletter or magazine of some sort. Quarterly works for me and would save money ( I think) now as far as the districts keeping members informed monthly what about a monthly newsletter? There's all kinds of ways to communicate things to the members and save money doing it.
Mike
Mike
http://www.ama-dist-8.org/calendar_index.php
At some point folks start to tune out of you overwhelm them with information. Club newsletters, e-mails, district sites, AMA sites, etc etc etc.
08-23-2016, 05:51 PM
#243
If in fact it's losing money than that needs to be addressed and when the 2015 financials hit we'll have a good idea what's what. As for me I believe that we need a newsletter or magazine of some sort. Quarterly works for me and would save money ( I think) now as far as the districts keeping members informed monthly what about a monthly newsletter? There's all kinds of ways to communicate things to the members and save money doing it.
Mike
Mike
He rambles about how doubtful he is that the AMA mag. is losing money because NONE of the current leadership has an issue with it bleeding, so it must not be a problem!!! (even though he can provide no facts).
Well, based on the numbers presented, it would appear that the magazine IS bleeding our $$ (at an alarming rate) AND the current leadership is turning a blind eye, choosing not to see it as an issue. If this in itself is not reason to call for change, I do not know what is!
Astro
08-23-2016, 05:52 PM
#244
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Those are the ONLY set of numbers that have been presented. I have no reason to doubt them until someone proves them wrong. You joke about others', "conspiracy theories", yet all you have to do is "doubt" the numbers and you use that to discredit others?
And once again, I asked for simple clarification of your "position" and (once again) you ramble on and on about other things without a whisper of a real answer.
Deflection, avoidance and spin.......classic Porcia, yet none of the substance you espouse that you bring to these discussions.
Astro
And once again, I asked for simple clarification of your "position" and (once again) you ramble on and on about other things without a whisper of a real answer.
Deflection, avoidance and spin.......classic Porcia, yet none of the substance you espouse that you bring to these discussions.
Astro
When an expert weighs in with an expert opinion, I'll be in a better, more informed position to discuss the matter factually. At this point, I have my opinion as do you. Cool?
08-23-2016, 05:54 PM
#245
Can you clarify this question/statement?
There were some numbers presented here that were supposedly taken from the AMA that showed the magazine losing around $1M in 2014. I haven't seen any other numbers that would put the $1M figure in question, have you?
Regards,
Astro
There were some numbers presented here that were supposedly taken from the AMA that showed the magazine losing around $1M in 2014. I haven't seen any other numbers that would put the $1M figure in question, have you?
Regards,
Astro
08-23-2016, 05:59 PM
#246
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Can you clarify this question/statement?
There were some numbers presented here that were supposedly taken from the AMA that showed the magazine losing around $1M in 2014. I haven't seen any other numbers that would put the $1M figure in question, have you?
Regards,
Astro
There were some numbers presented here that were supposedly taken from the AMA that showed the magazine losing around $1M in 2014. I haven't seen any other numbers that would put the $1M figure in question, have you?
Regards,
Astro
Just as an aside, have you reviewed the numbers from 2008- and forward? Or are you basing your assumption on the rag is bleeding money on the single figure? That's fine if that's the case.
08-23-2016, 06:01 PM
#247
The question was simple, "Do you have facts to support your opinion?" and you answered.........drum roll.........ORANGE!!!!!
It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree, you simply did not answer the question posed. You can have an opinion all you want (and you are entitled to do so), I guess I just assume that all of us base our opinions on the facts, but I guess you have different standards. Maybe you base your opinions on whatever will make the AMA look good?
Oh, by the way, did you see the AMA LEADER MEMBER who pledged his vote to Frank Tiano? Somebody better have "a talk" with him, it would appear that he forget the secret handshake!
Astro
08-23-2016, 06:05 PM
#248
Same question, posed a different way. Same answer applies, as noted repeatedly. See above.
Just as an aside, have you reviewed the numbers from 2008- and forward? Or are you basing your assumption on the rag is bleeding money on the single figure? That's fine if that's the case.
Just as an aside, have you reviewed the numbers from 2008- and forward? Or are you basing your assumption on the rag is bleeding money on the single figure? That's fine if that's the case.
Yes, that was the same question. I am still waiting for an answer.
Astro
08-23-2016, 06:19 PM
#249
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, it is apparent that you DON'T get it. I asked, you DIDN'T answer. You gave more empty spin and deflection.
The question was simple, "Do you have facts to support your opinion?" and you answered.........drum roll.........ORANGE!!!!!
It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree, you simply did not answer the question posed. You can have an opinion all you want (and you are entitled to do so), I guess I just assume that all of us base our opinions on the facts, but I guess you have different standards. Maybe you base your opinions on whatever will make the AMA look good?
Oh, by the way, did you see the AMA LEADER MEMBER who pledged his vote to Frank Tiano? Somebody better have "a talk" with him, it would appear that he forget the secret handshake!
Astro
The question was simple, "Do you have facts to support your opinion?" and you answered.........drum roll.........ORANGE!!!!!
It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree, you simply did not answer the question posed. You can have an opinion all you want (and you are entitled to do so), I guess I just assume that all of us base our opinions on the facts, but I guess you have different standards. Maybe you base your opinions on whatever will make the AMA look good?
Oh, by the way, did you see the AMA LEADER MEMBER who pledged his vote to Frank Tiano? Somebody better have "a talk" with him, it would appear that he forget the secret handshake!
Astro
When the final report is in, we can discuss.
08-23-2016, 06:33 PM
#250
And here you said you are here to have a worthwhile discussion....guess not.
Astro