[blackshoe]

Everybody's economy needs the business.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on May 1 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Why would D22 be covering the cost just because it would be held there. The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually. There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC. And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

[Vilgan]

TimG, on May 2 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 1 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Why would D22 be covering the cost  just because it would be held there.  The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually.  There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC.  And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

yeah... everytime I've heard discussion of funding for an NABC, it is assumed that it will be very expensive for the hosting district. Districts do things like tacking on a dollar to entry fees for the NABC fund, hold special games for funding, etc.

I'm not personally familiar with how the whole process works, but it seems unlikely that so many districts would need to raise money for NABCs if it wasn't costing them a pretty penny to host.

[JoAnneM]

Vilgan, on May 3 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

TimG, on May 2 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 1 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Why would D22 be covering the cost  just because it would be held there.  The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually.  There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC.  And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

yeah... everytime I've heard discussion of funding for an NABC, it is assumed that it will be very expensive for the hosting district. Districts do things like tacking on a dollar to entry fees for the NABC fund, hold special games for funding, etc.

I'm not personally familiar with how the whole process works, but it seems unlikely that so many districts would need to raise money for NABCs if it wasn't costing them a pretty penny to host.

I AM personally familiar with the District finances of NABC's. I was Sec/Treas of D20 during the 2004 Reno NABC and I am Finance Chair for the upcoming 2010 Reno NABC.

Appoximately one year before a NABC the District is given an estimated table count. There is a city chart which tells you how much per table ACBL is going to give the District to spend on Hospitality and Entertainment. This amount is guaranteed. The fundraising that Districts engage in is for extra money to enhance that ACBL funding. At the end of the NABC the District keeps any excess funds from this account based on the total table count on the Tournament. Districts do not lose money from NABC's unless they budget poorly, and even then
with the guaranteed funds there would be no reason for a District to lose money.

These funds pay for registration gifts, free food to players, entertainment, prizes, partnership, I/N, volunteers, caddies hospitality, tours, anything that is not pertinent to the games themselves.

Each NABC involves 2 to 3 years of planning.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on May 3 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

Appoximately one year before a NABC the District is given an estimated table count. There is a city chart which tells you how much per table ACBL is going to give the District to spend on Hospitality and Entertainment. This amount is guaranteed. The fundraising that Districts engage in is for extra money to enhance that ACBL funding. At the end of the NABC the District keeps any excess funds from this account based on the total table count on the Tournament. Districts do not lose money from NABC's unless they budget poorly, and even then with the guaranteed funds there would be no reason for a District to lose money.

I think perhaps there is a difference in how we are defining "losing money".

If a District engages in "extra fund raising" and then spends this money so that at the end of the NABC a District has less money than it started with, to me that is "losing money". Even if the District planned all along to spend that money during the NABC.

While I have not been as involved with District finances as you have, I have been on a District board before and after a NABC and have seen District treasurer reports. The balance of the District's "NABC fund" is much lower after an NABC than it is before an NABC. Bottom line: District 25 spends money when a NABC is held in the District. Whether that is considered "losing money" or just spending according to budget, the result is the same.

[helene_t]

What about a joined Havana/Miami bid? Great way to celebrate the lifting of the embargo.

[kenrexford]

Strange. I just heard through a grapevine that the WBF had selected somewhere described as "dangerous" in South American, where "you'd have to wear a bullet-proof vest and ride in an armored car to get from the airport to the playing site." The source claimed "no one is going because of this."

Rumors may be flying here.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Apr 30 2009, 07:00 AM, said:

I have pretty strong feelings about his sentiments. What do you think?

ACBL BoD reports for the past decade or so show a healthy debate regarding the ACBL's relationship with the WBF. There is a decent sized minority within the ACBL that seem to want to cut all ties to the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" of Old Europe... (Oops, sorry, I'm mixing up my conspiracy theories)

I have no great love for the WBF, particularly given their decision to spend so much time and effort trying to promote Bridge as an Olympic Sport. I consider this entire effort a travesty and a ridiculous distraction from more pressing matters.

However, I think that attempts to cut ACBL ties from the WBF are equally misguided. (I strongly prefer a prcess of constructive engagement)

[JoAnneM]

JoAnneM, on May 4 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

Vilgan, on May 3 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

TimG, on May 2 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 1 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Why would D22 be covering the cost  just because it would be held there.  The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually.  There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC.  And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

yeah... everytime I've heard discussion of funding for an NABC, it is assumed that it will be very expensive for the hosting district. Districts do things like tacking on a dollar to entry fees for the NABC fund, hold special games for funding, etc.

I'm not personally familiar with how the whole process works, but it seems unlikely that so many districts would need to raise money for NABCs if it wasn't costing them a pretty penny to host.

I AM personally familiar with the District finances of NABC's. I was Sec/Treas of D20 during the 2004 Reno NABC and I am Finance Chair for the upcoming 2010 Reno NABC.

Appoximately one year before a NABC the District is given an estimated table count. There is a city chart which tells you how much per table ACBL is going to give the District to spend on Hospitality and Entertainment. This amount is guaranteed. The fundraising that Districts engage in is for extra money to enhance that ACBL funding. At the end of the NABC the District keeps any excess funds from this account based on the total table count on the Tournament. Districts do not lose money from NABC's unless they budget poorly, and even then
with the guaranteed funds there would be no reason for a District to lose money.

These funds pay for registration gifts, free food to players, entertainment, prizes, partnership, I/N, volunteers, caddies hospitality, tours, anything that is not pertinent to the games themselves.

Each NABC involves 2 to 3 years of planning.

Perhaps the the NABC's I know about are different because they are on the west coast and have been incredibly successful and profitable.

Even Hawaii which was a bust on table count returned the money advanced by D20 and still ended up with more than they started with.

[david_c]

How odd. When we have a national event over here, it's run by the national bridge organisation. That makes sense to me. How come the ACBL expects the locals to take on so much responsibility?

[Phil]

david_c, on May 4 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

How odd. When we have a national event over here, it's run by the national bridge organisation. That makes sense to me. How come the ACBL expects the locals to take on so much responsibility?

I have the same question. Given that the chores involved in running a NABC are essentially the same year in and year out, you'd think that Memphis would have team that goes from NABC to NABC.

[TimG]

Phil, on May 4 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

david_c, on May 4 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

How odd. When we have a national event over here, it's run by the national bridge organisation. That makes sense to me. How come the ACBL expects the locals to take on so much responsibility?

I have the same question. Given that the chores involved in running a NABC are essentially the same year in and year out, you'd think that Memphis would have team that goes from NABC to NABC.

There are numerous committees filled by locals at a NABC. The information desk, the partnership desk, the restaurant guide, the registration desk, etc. are all manned or put together by locals. The registration gifts are selected by locals, the NABC logo is selected by locals, the hospitality (free food every evening) is selected by locals who (I believe) work directly with the hotel staff. No NABC would run without a host of locals doing a lot of work. Whether or not that is the way it should be is another matter.

[gnasher]

TimG, on May 4 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

There are numerous committees filled by locals at a NABC. The information desk, the partnership desk, the restaurant guide, the registration desk, etc. are all manned or put together by locals. The registration gifts are selected by locals, the NABC logo is selected by locals, the hospitality (free food every evening) is selected by locals who (I believe) work directly with the hotel staff. No NABC would run without a host of locals doing a lot of work. Whether or not that is the way it should be is another matter.

Those are all things that simply don't exist at EBU events. As I understand it, the ACBL does all of the things at NABCs that the EBU does at its national events.

PS: You forgot to mention the cellphone check-in service.

[mycroft]

I didn't realize it was the Transnational Rosenblum Cup (I did realize it existed, but not that that's the event we were looking at).

Okay, then it should be equivalent - it's the same(ish) prestige level, the same(ish) time commitment, and the same qualifications. We should get the same teams, especially if it's in the U.S.

Thanks for the correction, Fred.

[TimG]

gnasher, on May 4 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

TimG, on May 4 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

There are numerous committees filled by locals at a NABC.  The information desk, the partnership desk, the restaurant guide, the registration desk, etc. are all manned or put together by locals.  The registration gifts are selected by locals, the NABC logo is selected by locals, the hospitality (free food every evening) is selected by locals who (I believe) work directly with the hotel staff.  No NABC would run without a host of locals doing a lot of work.  Whether or not that is the way it should be is another matter.

Those are all things that simply don't exist at EBU events. As I understand it, the ACBL does all of the things at NABCs that the EBU does at its national events.

PS: You forgot to mention the cellphone check-in service.

I was at an NABC in Kansas City maybe 10 years ago. There was one evening (I think a Sunday) that had no hospitality (free food). There was actually something of an uproar.

[blackshoe]

Because, legally, the ACBL is not a "national bridge organization".

Well, I suppose that's debatable, but technically, the Olympic Charter (OC) requires that National Sports Organizations concern themselves with a single nation only. The ACBL, as a WBF Zonal Authority, is a multinational organization, and therefore not eligible under the OC to be an NBO. And the WBF Constitution requires that WBF member NBOs conform to the OC.

On a more practical note, ACBL Districts are bigger than many countries, at least geographically.

[JoAnneM]

When you say "locals" you are actually talking about the entire District. A well run NABC will have volunteers from all the Units in the host District, carefully scheduled. Even the committee chairs may be spread around. For our Reno NABC we are from Portland, Reno, Yuba City and the NABC Chair is from Vancouver, WA.

Hope to see you all there, the Grand Sierra Hotel has been remodeled and is lovely. And the room rates are great. They have been running $39 specials all year. Not sure what they will be for the NABC but should be close to the $89 they were in 2004. And you could probably do better on the interenet.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on May 4 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

When you say "locals" you are actually talking about the entire District.

Yes, I do mean the whole district, though in this District about 40% of the District's membership is actually in the Eastern Massachusetts Unit where the NABC is held so that a lot of the work is done by actual locals. The New England District, especially from a population density standpoint, is far less spread out that many ACBL Districts.

Each Unit in District 25 has a special day at the NABC, but I still expect that the bulk of the work is done by players from the unit where the NABC is actually held.

[mike777]

As a nonexpert I would love to see an open WC event held in the USA, often, very often. If you need to raise my ACBL fee, ok.


"The World Bridge Federation has lost the Russian playing site for its Fall World Championships in 2010, and is hunting a replacement venue."

[JoAnneM]

Ah, yours was the Boston NABC. I heard that was really very nice, your District is to be congratulated. Wish I had attended.

Well, I still think you can never have too much bridge, and the publicity and PR of an international event can never hurt.