Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
 More math help requested??? >

More math help requested???

Community
Search
Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

More math help requested???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-11-2004 | 01:18 PM
  #26  
My Feedback: (3)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Tipp City, OH
Default RE: More math help requested???

ORIGINAL: J_R

The AMA has been stable at about 2500 chartered clubs for several years. Each year, we lose a few and we gain a few and the net change is zero.

Call your local TV station and get a price on a 30 second ad and you will answer your own question. Forget the Super Bowl, those ads cost more than the building would.

Which fat cats in Muncie are you refering to? The competitors that build and fly indoor models, or the Elected UNPAID members of the EC? Or are you talking about the ones that chase mice in the crop fields?

Fat cats? The ones who decide to take on stupid ideas like this with everyones elses money. As far as advancing aeromodeling, a net change of zero doesn't really seem like we are going in the right direction. We probably lose more people and clubs because of ignorant b.s. like this.
Old 04-11-2004 | 01:24 PM
  #27  
My Feedback: (3)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Tipp City, OH
Default RE: More math help requested???

ORIGINAL: J_R

Good point.

According to Billy Hell, there are only 800 Pro Bro members. There are less than 900 turbine waiver holders, and no turbines were flown at the NATS. Let's get rid of 3 D and turbines, as well. Any group with such low numbers can't possibly advance aeromodeling.
If twisting my words is the best you have then I'll chalk this up as one argument won for me. No where did I say get rid of anybody. Are you hoping some FF guys would read this and steer this thread elsewhere? I basically said that if only 50 people showed up, why would we take on a huge debt, at the expense of the members, to build a building for them. I'm done with this thread, as stated before, if the AMA is stupid enough to do something like this, then to hell with them. After all this time, NO ONE has answered my question as to how this multi-million dollar building would advance aeromodeling. Go figure.

Good day,
Old 04-11-2004 | 01:30 PM
  #28  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Default RE: More math help requested???

The answer is simple. If it had not been for the FF guys, then the CL guys of the past, there would be no AMA. To walk away now is... well... not acceptable.
Old 04-11-2004 | 02:31 PM
  #29  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Corona, CA,
Default RE: More math help requested???

Time to rant

For any of you that do not realize it, there as a time before RC. The AMA existed and dues was paid. The AMA has become a corporation with a value of about $25 million, using Dave Brown's estimation. That was not put together in the last year or the last 10 years and probably the bulk was not put together in the last 20 years.

The AMA is self-insured for the first $250,000 of each liability claim. That is possible because of the reserves, in the form of cash and assets that the AMA has built over a very long period of time. Anyone can go by a liability policy... for some amount of money. The current arrangement allows the AMA to use commercial insurance as almost an emergency policy. Very, very few claims are paid by the commercial insurance policy. That keeps the dues down.

ALL of this is brought to you, courtesy of the early AMA members... the FF and CL modelers, that went before. There are still a lot of us that now fly RC that can remember times before RC existed. There are still very active FF and CL communities. Trying to dismiss thier contribution is akin to asking "what have you done for me lately?". They made RC possible for all of us.

Should we spend 6 million? I say NO WAY, on the other hand there is some amount that I feel is reasonable. Truth be known, I don't know what is reasonable. I don't much like the concept of a national flying site. At the same time, the NATS are something I am very supportive of. Since we do have a national site, and the NATS will be held there, it seems only appropriate that indoor be represented there as well. JUST MY OPINION.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.