Originally Posted by
beepee
OK, I'll bite. I'm a NO vote. My concern would be total acquisition and operating costs, and what that would to do our annual dues rate. No matter where you locate these sites, the majority of the membership will not feel the benefit, but will feel the cost. It is possible such regional sites could be operated on a zero cost basis ("pay to play"), though that would get even more expensive for the users. The sites would still have to be managed and by whom?
I feel the grant system works. Help clubs defray costs and keep the control and the grass-roots level.
Bedford
I don't know that we should assume acquisition costs. If the results of the geolocation analysis show proximity to exiting club field(s), then why not a partnership / subsidy relationship? AMA becomes a stakeholder in the club actions, decisions, events etc. in exchange for enhanced resources for improvements and maintenance. Those events would be the regional events on a 'not less than' type basis.