ORIGINAL: Morison
Mark has said, but I have no idea if it is true, that the 2005 Nats did not present a complete budget to the board ... I suspect this is where he has the biggest problem.
Actually, what I said was that the event was essentially approved and "seed" money was going to organizers BEFORE a proper budget was submitted/approved.
Participation I also don't care about. However, events that expect to recieve MAAC money to get the event going and potentially cover losses should have a budget designed around a minimum number of PAID participants by a deadline date that ensures financial "break even" point............or face cancellation while losses are minimum.
Fluff like event t-shirts and golf balls, paid photographers etc. are non-essentials and shouldn't be included in budget projections and shouldn't be funded by the membership because that is the stuff the sets you up for a loss if the weather tanks. THAT SHOULD have been a pretty blatant lesson learned from MAAC's recent history.
If a hosting club wants to add fluff to an event, they should be out hunting corporate sponsorship to get that coin. That way, if the fluff gamble turns a profit,(after MAAC's money is back in the can) the sponsoring clubs can keep the proceeds and their is no argument. Let's face it, it's easier to get a hand-out than it is to go hunting for sponsors.............
........in my humble opinion.
(Marc Sharpe's opinion, in no way reflects that current executive, board and other sharpe-hating members of the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada)