2005 MAAC Nats
 

Scuttlebut around the campfire at this past weekend fly-in was that the registration at the maac nats was low - what's the word down east?
[link=http://www.maacnats.ca/]maac nats[/link]

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Scuttlebut....:eek:

What little involvement I've had with these things, I can tell you that you offer everything, and cancel those events that fail to produce registrations. I think we can expect some events to be cancelled due to lack of participation. I think this is sound fiscal responsibility.

I only reply because, based on past history... 'someone' will be spinning "event cancellation due to lack of interest" to insinuate some failing of the organisers.:eek:

Further, given the recent sporadic Nats offerings, I think it's reasonable to view this as a building time. In my humble opinion, we need to get a few years of scheduled Nats back to back to build the numbers back up to where they once were.... maybe even beyond.[8D]

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Jim, you are the KING of spinning, so it's only natural spin was in your first reply to the topic.
Long Live the King of Spin.!

I also see the pre-registration dealine was extended.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Thanks 'bud'.

"KING of spinning" I like it. My spin scores have improved since it was pointed out to me that I was failing to enter correctly (aircraft not fully stalled).... Ooops, I guess I missed your "spin", you were referring to politics rather than flying .... as usual.:eek:

You're just sore that I may have stole your thunder before you could pounce in the event of bad news related to MAAC eh?

Maybe you should ask yourself, what kind of person goes hunting for bad news, hoping to find it...?

Here's to another successful Nationals, regardless of how it may be spun by those "in-the-know" types who don't compete, volunteer or even attend![>:]

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

.......you two stop dancing.

What was heard that registrations were around 75 of an expected 200.

Bottom line:

That sounds like another large financial loss in the making if these numbers hold true. We need to learn from our past mistakes.

All the political BS aside. If we are on track for another big single event loss, shut the damn thing down and cut losses. It's the responsible thing to do.

Wasting money for a "concept" that nobody is buying into is stupid. Not spin. Good sense.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Actually it's just news!

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

I hope that the event is successfull. The consequences of failure would be unpleasant for the organizers, the parent organization (MAAC) & all of the rest of us, as the "dancing" in the aftermath would likely become a bit noisy & unfreindly.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

No... actually it's just scuttlebut as Ken originally pointed out, unless you can verify that who you heard from, has real information.

As for shutting down the Nats (Jim sighs, trying to remain calm ;)) ....

I think the Nats are in a rebuilding phase.
Personally, I see no issues with running the Nats at a small deficit, not only as a service to modellers, but as an investment in the future. MAAC is not a for-profit organization, it is a service organization. Services cost money. It's nice when you can recover some costs, even nicer when you can turn a profit... But that seems very difficult these days.... why should MAAC be "raked over the coals" for what so many other service organizations have failed at?

If you'll allow me to draw a parallel, I've had a little experience at getting new companies "off the ground". Any company who's prospetus claims to turn a profit within the first 18 months, is probably not worth investing in as it's too good to be true. I think it's unfortunate that many expect to simply turn the switch on, and have a large event like this be a financial success out the door. Competing at a Nationals is not something individuals simply show up to like a funfly. It takes preparation .... for example, I wasn't ready to compete at this level this year, I couldn't get my work schedule co-ordinated to allow me to be there, let alone have a documented aircraft (and myself) ready.[:o]

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

I hear what you are saying Jim, but MAAC isn't a fledgling organization. We seem to have gotten in the habit of sucking up some big losses for single events and I don't agree with that.

It becomes expected that the rest of us should be funding the fun for a limited number of members, most of whom seem to be the same people because there appears to be little new interest in serious competition.

I could probably stomach a "small loss", but if this is looking like losses are going to reach up beyond a few thousand bucks, then I believe the smart thing to do is move on and hope for a better response in BC. In light of MAAC's budget woes,it would appear that we have better places to invest our money than in making the same mistakes over and over.

Yep, we need some real numers. Perhaps you can ask those on the committee what they are? I know they won't give them to me.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

I think we must disagree on your statement of "little new interest in competition"...

No MAAC is not a fledgling company but, a Nationals is a new venture, as it has not had a stable history of recent.

I'm not on the Nationals committee, and don't pretend to be "in the know", given the politics surrounding the event, I think any communication should come directly from them.

I find it difficult to believe there could be a loss "in the thousands" for a National level event. There's simply no need for expenses like accomodating international judges etc.

The sky is not falling and I would think the current exec would be on top of the situation.... why not exercise your rights and call your Zone rep?

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Even IF we get 200 to register for the Nats this is still less than 2% of the total membership participating. Maybe not a relative comparison but if a business ran and advertised a sale and less than 2% of the 'customers' responded the sale would be classed as a failure and not repeated.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

That's a poor comparison, how are the Nationals to be compared to a sale?
That would be like saying advertising at the superbowl is a bad idea because most customers don't compete in the superbowl....

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

......that comparison isn't that good either. The main difference there is that a rather large percentage of "non-participants" in the superbowl have an interest in the event.

Again, the problem I have is the potential for avoidable losses to the association being incurred. What I do know, from my ZD, is that board approval and some "seed money" was given to the event prior to a proper budget submission. What I don't know is how much that was and what the numbers needed to be to break-even and repay that money? I think the budget should be posted on the MAAC website so the membership knows the facts.

I would be very interested to know if there are other expenses that are expected to be covered by a minimum number of entries that the committee will look to the association to cover if more losses beyond any "seed" money.

I would like to know if the minimum "break-even" number of participants required was pulled out of the air or based on past event participation numbers, etc, etc.

This isn't about vague "romantic" ideals of past history, bla, bla...........it's about being responsible with the membership's money, particularly in light of or known budgetary situation.

It shouldn't upset anyone or be taken personally.

I will be asking through "proper" channels for details related to this event, including the full budget and moneys that have been forwarded and intend to post every last bit of it for all members to review. .........I also expect that I won't be provided with it, but will instead receive some lame reasons why I can't have it.

.....stay tuned.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

... you're assuming the opposite viewpoint. Fine. Both are assumptions but you state yours as fact ... this is what I often refer to as spinning....

So what you're saying basically, is you don't trust the board to make decisions....

Unless there is an established track record of how such information is used and abused...

See above.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

10-4, both are assumptions...............but mine is better.....(kidding)

As to trusting the board on this one; .......ahhhh, unfortunately our track record hasn't been that great as of late. Regardless, as a member in good standing, I am entitled to ask and to be provided with the information and there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on what is going on........and further, there is nothing wrong with providing said information to all members. If it was to be posted in it's entirety on the MAAC website for all to see and question, there would be no need to worry about spin or missinformation because the information/facts would be coming directly from the source.

The following is the request that I sent. I'll keep you posted on what/if any response I receive.

Executive/Board:

I formally request the following information related the upcoming 2005 NATS;

The most recent budget submission by the committee in electronic format.
The total amount of funds (seed money) that have been provided to the committee thus far
The most recent total registrants for the event and the deadline date for entrants.

Thank you.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

.......no repsonse regarding my request to date.

[sm=tired.gif]

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

I was told "you" wont get one either...your ZD "may"

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

...whatcha Mean Ronnieo? [sm=surprised.gif]

...........if everything was going fine, why wouldn't the board provide that basic info to any paid up member? ...slpain Lucy...

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

At this point in time it is immaterial whether the Nats is going to lose money or the entry is small. The NATS will go ahead. So, instead of sitting at home grumbling about it or expressing ones discontent on various Forums, take a day or two off work and attend and support the event. Who knows if enough people did this it could turn out to be a success, which is not to say it will not anyway.

Ed S

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

I'm assigned to the flightline for the event..........Sat/Sun. Thanks for the most intelligent comment so far on this thread ED.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Hey Ed. Far from immaterial......................but a moot point because after a second request, I did receive relevant information regarding the event. (Posted below)

The request of hard info/facts really shouldn't be passed off as "grumbling". An informed membership is potentially a more active membership. I have no interest in seeing the event fail because I am a "co-loser" if it does. I simply don't want to see any further big losses related to individual events. I wish life were as simple as, "take a day or two off work and attend and support the event", but it isn't and there are plenty of events around here in my interest area that need as much support as I can manage on my limited time off.

Regardless, the bottom line is that Director Shaw states that no association money is at risk and with that information, the total numbers attending/competing really doesn't matter to me at this point. Here's the bit I got and my follow-up response;

----------------------------

"All
As of now there is NO seed money in our hands nor do we expect to need any. There are over 100 entrants to this point but Helli,Electric,and Sailplane events have been cancelled due to lack of entrants. Scale Aerobatics and Scale are the highest entrant events.
A full report will be in the MAAC Mag after the event.
Hope to see you there.
Gerry Shaw "

-----------------------------

"Thanks.

Confirming that "NO" association funds have been expended for this event, there is obviously no need for the requested budget information.

I appreciate your reponse and wish you good weather and good fun.

I'll look for the report in the mag.

Cheers.

Marc Sharpe"

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

RMAAC

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Surprised at your answer Marc as I did as so many have suggested people do, and asked my ZD about seed money for the nationals and I was told that 3500 had been committed. Now before anyone jumps to the conclusion that Gerry is not telling the truth and that there is some conspiracy going on, as the information was given in the midst of a rather long conversation during a chance meeting at the local building store, it is more likely that I got the information wrong (3500 was available, etc). However I think it underscores the need for "news release" types of information. This is why I suggested years ago that MAAC needed a public affairs/information office position (volunteer of course) to put out info bulletins.

Jeff

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

In fairness, Mr Shaw does state the don't have any "seed money our their hands", which could mean that entry money has already paid back the initial "seed" money that I also heard they received via ZD.

..........both statements could be correct.

And Yes, they could eliminate speculation by simply posting budget and updated information such as this stuff on the Website. This I tried, but some get right riled up feeling that much of MAAC business is top secret for some reason? So what if such info is discussed and questioned openly..........at least the basic facts related to such discussion would be accurate.

RE: 2005 MAAC Nats
 

Here we go again… OLD POISON MOUTH Kenair and Sharpy01.

The TWO BEST reason that we have problem in MAAC!!

Both are against having NATIONALS for any reason.
People like this are the reason we have not had NATS in Canada.

Someone does something GOOD for MAAC and they are all over them.

They stand on the sidelines and poke, lie, and make fun of anyone that at lease tries to do something for MAAC.

Just take a look at the advatar Sharpy01 is using, it tells the hole story...