ApHC Value Deal
Here is the plan:
1. Eliminate the national point fee, and eliminate the National and World Show Premiums .
2. Instead charge $10 per horse per show (event, location).
There are many positives to this. Many shows charge a flat fee for the weekend package anyway, so this way everyone knows what they are going to end up paying ahead of time. We will get many more entries per show as it does not cost any additional money to add a class or two. We get very little bang for our bucks with the premiums, and this spreads that money to every exhibitor throughout the year, not just the few that win at the big shows. It is simple and easy.
(Remember this is per horse per show, so it doesn’t matter what we do with number of judges in the future the math will still work. )
Some people have asked me some more question on this that I would like to answer.
1. Isn’t this unfair to those rich people at the World Show?The entry fee at the world and national shows would NOT be reduced the $30 even though there is no payback money (no checks based on placings other than specialty awards). That money is used to make the shows cheaper for everyone throughout the year. So yes they are paying a big portion of the cost, but they are also benefiting from cheaper regional shows and more entries at those shows. If we don’t use the premium money and just charge a flat fee the cost would be $25 or so per horse, which might not work for those people only showing in one or two events.
2. What about single judge shows? Currently I have not done anything with single judge shows. They are not included in the calculations. They pay no national point fees now, and could still pay nothing under this proposal if we exempt them. There are not very many of those shows and not very many horses at these shows. As a board we would need to decided what to do with them but the money raised either way does not impact the overall numbers very much.
3. Is $10 doable? It seems way to cheap? I can’t give you specific numbers, but I can give a hypothetical example that shows you how the math works.
(these are made up numbers for illustration)
Let’s say we currently bring in $200,000 in national point fees, and pay back $100,000 in class premiums each year. We also have 200 horse shows a year and 50 horses at each show.
So if we elimate the premiums we get $200,000-$100,000 = $100,000
and if each horse pays $10 at each show…… 50 horses X $10 fee X 200 shows = $100,000
So at $10 a horse we break even with our current fees.
4. What do you mean by per show? It is amazing how we have twisted things so that people no longer know what a show is. LOL When I say per horse, per show I mean just that the show is the event. Per horse and at one show ( One event, One weekend, one location, no matter how many judges…. you know a show).
5. If you are a Non-Pro or Youth and pay the $10.00 fee and then go in an Open class, do you have the $10.00 fee for Open classes as well? Nope only one $10 fee per horse per event
6. What is the revenue from the current point fees we have used for? Everything. That money goes into the general fund that help us do everything we do, the website, the journal, the World and National shows, maintaining the registry, etc.
7. Regarding World Premiums –What did you mean exactly by this –Payback in the classes?
At the National Show, we take $30 from each paid entry fee (all horses entered in the class minus those vet scratched) and put that money into the premium payback pot for each class. So if there are 20 entries in a class, the total payback for the class would be $600. At the National Show, we pay back through 5th place if there are 25 or fewer entries. Or, we pay back through 8th place if there are 26 or more entries.
At the World Show, we use the same $30 from each paid entry and then ApHC puts $300 in added money into each class. So the premium payback would include both the added money plus the entry fee money (all horses entered minus vet scratches). At the World Show, we pay back through 6thplace. If there are fewer than 6 entered in the class, any unpaid premiums are retained by the ApHC.
We don’t pay back in youth classes, novice classes or non-pro equitation or showmanship classes. Those non-pro class entry fees are $30 less than entry fees in the classes in which we offer premium payback.
These payouts amount to a lot of money in total (which helps with my plan), but very small to each winner. I do not believe many people show at these events because of these payouts. We have won some of this money before, and the checks as not big enough to make a dent in what it costs you to qualify for the show. I would rather see this money used to make it easier for everyone to get there rather than be given to a few that win at the World or Nationals. Lower the barrier of entry and we will have more people showing.
Entries (RSS)
Leave your reply or comment here
Bill,
This is the best idea I have heard yet!! I am very impressed, we finally
have a BOD who really is thinking of the membership, not just talking about
it. Being on the board of the Michigan Appaloosa Association, I can tell you that Michigan will be behind you 100%. Thank You!!!
Carol Marttila
Michigan
Kudos for you for finally putting up an interactive forum!!!
I hope the word spreads and the intent is contagious among the other BOD’s!
The concept of the $10 National fee is a step forward-if it passes what is the plan for marketing this to reach people who have left showing?
dar
Rapid River, Michigan
http://www.kdjjappaloosas.com
Bill
At a regular show this would cost us two more dollars that what we pay now per horse. How many horses showed in the US last year? This would not give the regional clubs much relief that they need. This won’t do anything but cost us two extra dollars at each show and most people. It would be nice to know how many show and how many attend that qualify for the worlds.
Bill I worked the FFA convention the past few years with Gary… Last year I only got to go up one day. That day we had five kids come back thru that had purchased Appaloosas. We tried to give them info of trainers close to where they lived for help. That has been money well spent… The people look for your booth.. The advisors are using the Appaloosa info… They like it so well they send other advisor to pick it up…. What other breed has this much influence at that level…. Think long and hard before you give that up~!
Also I know of three families that showed horses for high point the year we hauled Pretend Money…. One of these families ran all summer played the game to come down to a shows at the end that were padded with entries… Directors where present at some of these shows…. Adding money to classes that was not advertised at the last minute . Now I am not against added Money but it should have to be published on the Bill to make it fair…. Not just to rig a show for one individual…. Things like this hurt the breed and leave a bad taste.
I wondered if a regional show could afford a flat breeder fee to bring in some more horses… Halter is slim at best and I am old enough I remember the large halter classes… It cost us as much as someone who shows all day to show one horse. I can remember when Indiana had a 12 shows a year. Now we have two. We are lucky that the states here are not that far that you can not reach them…. It is hard to sell a horse you have no shows for in your state. The office has too many employees for the volume of horses going thru it now…. and the salaries there are high… The customer service is not the best. God be with you to guide you. Susan Rhoades
I think you might be confused. The $10 is per horse per show (Weekend, Location) not per judge. So unless you show just one class at a 4 judge event you will be saving money.
By the way the staff at the ApHC is way down in numbers from where it used to be. It has been decreasing as other numbers like transfers and registrations also decrease. I can assure you no one is getting rich working for the ApHC.
While I admire any effort put forth to bring relief to the exhibitors, I find your numbers slightly off kilter. Unless, of course, you are counting the shows held outside the 48. There were approx. 158 shows held in the year 2009 which would bring your example down to about $79,000.
One other thing your proposal doesn’t do is to bring relief to the clubs that run these shows & are in such need of an increase in all their bottom lines. Even shows that seem to be reasonably successful, above 400 entries per judge I believe is the number that has been bantered around, are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Without these shows it would be pointless to change any of the other fees.
I did hear of one idea that I personally liked & that would be to make qualifying for Worlds done only through the regionals. This would in my opinion keep people that want to go to the Worlds showing deeper into the calendar year. Thus more income for the regionals & the ApJC.
Thanks for your comments. I can assure you I got all my numbers from Keri and Tina at the ApHC before I came up with this idea.
Yes you are correct that the number of shows is less than my example, but the actual number of horses per show is also much higher than in my example. Also the premiums are more than in my example. So the math works really does work and gets us within 5% of what we bring in under the current system. I think the reduced fees at the regional level should help all those shows, not hurt them. So there are benefits all around.
I think it is a good idea! I usually end up paying $50-$80 in Natl fees. I would love to just pay $10
Bill,
I applaud you for taking the lead on looking for ways to reframe this particular revenue stream for the ApHC. Also for seeing that it needs to be renamed something other than the hated NATIONAL POINTS FEE. (That’s never done anything but make individuals and clubs mad from the get-go. Much better to call it something that makes people feel good about contributing $10 each time they take their horse to an ApHC event. The “I believe in my breed” offering, if you will.)
What you are proposing is a fee-per-service concept, really, rather than a fee-for-points service. Rather like the $9.99 a person might pay for a month’s online service, or online bill-paying service. The world is pretty used to this sort of thing by now. (If I know you, you’re also working on some kind of iPhone-type application what will allow people to just text their fee directly to the ApHC! Bypass the regional clubs entirely as fee collectors! You go, Bill.)
I’m also glad you have this website, so I can ask you this directly:
In terms of revenue stream, the two variables would be # of shows, and # of horses per show–correct?
There would also be a segment of revenue dependent on # of entries at the National/World shows, correct?
So for the sake of revenue forecasting, revenue here will go down if the # of shows, horses per show, and Big-show entries decrease–but will go up if there are increases in the three variables–right? If all remains static, revenue here is static–also correct?
If all of these points are correct assumptions, then it becomes almost a fudiciary duty for the board to look at ALL events-participation areas under its umbrella, and to collect the per-horse-per-event fee from the other points-recording/records-preserving areas of the ApHC.
With income down and dropping from the breeding/registration revenue streams, it’s just a business imperative to look at ALL areas that could help shift means of revenue from breeding to participation. (And to subsequently make it a top priority to promote/support events and participation therein.)
I contend that the single-judge shows most CERTAINLY should be included in a per-horse-per-event plan. This single-judge, single-day concept is an area of untapped growth potential, both for adding to the number of revenue-producing events, and for adding opportunities for more individuals to get into or return to showing Appaloosas. It doesn’t make business sense to exclude it. (I dream of seeing the ApHC take the lead in establishing a simple one-day show format that would spread from locale to locale, and serve to re-grow the base for showing–but that, as they say, is a whole different rodeo.)
Anyway: Under this plan you propose, the people who bring a horse to the most events per year will pay in the most $$ per year. We want them to be proud of this, not to resent it. You might think about some kind of recognition to the most active Appaloosa participants–just a thought. AQHA has its “Show Up” program for this purpose. The more shows you attend, the higher you move up in levels of recognition.
You might also think about earmarking a portion of total annual proceeds to breed promotion. People would get behind that.
Not that you don’t already have enough to think about! So I’ll just close with “good job so far,” and get myself busy out in the barn. Thanks for hearing me out.
–Juli Thorson
This is all fine and dandy, sounds workable and could possibly get more people out there showing. HOWEVER, just how do you plan to get the rest of the BOD to go along with this when most of them are trainers/breeders/showers. They have fought doing anything to reduce/change the “Show Rules” for years, why should they go along with it now? Just because the ApHC is going under and there will no longer be a registry for Appaloosas, except ApHCC, possibly but I doubt it. If I sound bitter, I am. An Appaloosa should have color, conformation, disposition, stamina and willingness, not look like what is currently wining with no color for starters. So why not carry it one step further, for that $10 entry fee there will be 2 classes one for color and one for solids. They can be in the ring at the same time, just judged as 2 separate classes. JMHO
This sounds good and I really like the “old but new again” idea of the smaller, single judge shows and more of them scattered all over. I agree with Sandy Dean here and want to add even more. We need a judge that sees value in the versatile, reliable, able to do just about anything you ask type of appaloosa, just like in the early shows where the performance winners were also halter winners. Sound conformation really does count in a horses true ability and longevity and we need to get back to that. Also it is an appaloosa show, not a show for competing breeds and the judge should be judging as such. Color counts as well. If it isn’t colored and is already 3/4 or more of a different breed, it isn’t an appaloosa and shouldn’t be presented as such.
Thanks for the chance to state my opinion.
Penny Kowalski
Thanks Julie and Sandy and Penny. Yes everything is based on the entries at the National and World and number of horses and shows at the regional level. If any of them decrease so would our income (That is also the way it is now).
I am not sure if those BOD members will go for it or not. I sure hope so. We have had many ideas about this in the past and most of them never make it through for one reason or another. I appreciate your support.
I like the $10 idea. It would save me money, as I do the all-around and show in about 5-6 classes.
For the people concerned about color and performance/halter winners, you should be talking to the BREEDERS about this. They are the ones who produce the horses we have. And the breeders generally breed for what is desirable. The horse industry is getting much more specialized in terms of diciplines. If that is what’s selling, that’s what the breeders are going to produce. And, as a person who’s bred Appaloosas App to App, I can say that I have gotten some solids, I didn’t ask for them… no reason to devalue the horses by separating them from the colored horses. But that is an entirely different discussion!
Staci
Some people have asked me some more questions on this that I would like to answer:
1.Isn’t this unfair to those rich people at the World Show?
a. Define “rich” in real numbers please, if someone is going to post this publically and incorporate it into part of the general discussion. A statement like this feels negative, and makes me loose respect for the proposal overall. Most people not wealthy, myself included; but why would anyone’s income or “perceived income” factor into this proposal if it is indeed is for “ALL” ApHC members as outlined? Should we hold our wealthy ApHC members to a different standard then not? It is ludicrous at best to speculate about another’s income level, and this doesn’t belong in the conversation if the mission is for “ALL” ApHC members then let’s keep “All members” on equal ground and felt welcomed to participate.
2.Is $10 doable? It seems way too cheap? I can’t give you specific numbers, but I can give a hypothetical example that shows you how the math works:
a.How does the regional club benefit from this plan? Most are struggling as it is just to survive. In theory: the numbers at shows will increase because of the new $10.00 flat rate National Point fee? You are purposing just the judges’ point fees change, nothing else? So in turn a regional club can still set their own prices for their said shows’, they will determine the entries fees and make money this way?
Can you clarify this further please?
6. What is the revenue from the current point fees we have used for? Everything. That money goes into the general fund that help us do everything we do, the website, the journal, the World and National shows, maintaining the registry, etc.
a.What is the current operating general fund budget for 2010?
b.If we as a club use this proposed system, base the earnings and aphc’s “new” general fund budget on these (new) hypothetical numbers, assuming that these numbers must substantially increase, how much will the overall budget actually change? Estimated increase or decreases?
In real figures please.
7. Regarding World Premiums –What did you mean exactly by this –Payback in the classes?
a. My appaloosa has LTE exceeding 14k. Most of this is in ApHC earnings, (the rest is NSBA). So I beg to differ, it does help.
But more than winning paybacks and/or futurities monies, as an appaloosa owner, it is something to be proud of LTE and we should not decrease this in any way! If anything we should increase this to make our breed more appealing to those considering an appaloosa.
b. For example, your horse’s LTE, one should be able to compare the average ApHC to APHA and even AQHA without a huge contrast. How can our appaloosas compete and earn money if our own organization doesn’t give substantial paybacks? This proposed decreasing imo will hurt breeders of appaloosas but cheapening our entire breed. Personally, I think we need to add to the organization overall! To gain future market shares of members, we must put our appaloosas on “equal footing” in all areas. Money and LTE’s included. We must make the Aphc and our larger shows like the World show the most prestigious event to want to partake in.
c. Also, all this being said, do not take away our bronze WS trophies! I am in favor of re doing the National’s trophy for sure, but overall our awards should remain something of high desire. Our world show trophies I feel out class that of any other breeds I have seen! I am aware of and in favor of Clay from Cowboy Bronze’s to create trophies for our larger shows, however, we must keep the final product one that “All” members would proudly want and support.
A vote seems fair over new proposed designs? I think they could start with the National’s trophy, re do it, and see how the response is overall.
Lower the barrier of entry and we will have more people showing:
a.What barriers are in place that you are eluding too? Everyone has the same ability to attend the World show as their fellow exhibitors. Too, the regional clubs have the ability, and permission to grant “X” number of members to attend the ApHC World show each year if for whatever reason an exhibitor was not able to get the qualifying points in place. For example, if a member does not want to haul for qualifying points they can simple be appointed to compete at world show?
b.Too, if we are looking at what is fair for exhibitors, let’s examine the qualifying point system in general. Why is it the WP classes require more points than most any other classes, to qualify and show at Worlds’? For example; Jr. WP is 9 or 10 points to qualify for Worlds, vs. say a class like reining, which I believe it is only 2 points?
c.I have heard the rationale and do not feel it’s fair. If we are going to lower the “so called” barriers to make things equal and obtainable for “ALL” aphc members, let’s not make our youngest horses “our Jr. horses” be the recipients of having to have the burden of the most points to show. I find this unfair.
An example, in 2008 we were trying to “find qualifying points” for the 3y/o & Jr. WP for Worlds. The recession was just starting to get underway, and diesel fuel was shy of $5.00 a gallon (anyone else remember this)! Yet we stilled hauled to get those qualifying points, we chose to support the larger shows that season. Yet, the so called “larger regional shows”, not one had a “double pointed class” in my division that year.
The incentive to simply lower the cost and people will turn out in support? I do not think shows enough data. What other factors are there to consider when a well respected show like the “American Freedom” doesn’t have a double pointed class in 3y/o WP? Sure we can blame the economy, I know I felt this way, but too, I think there is much more to consider besides money…
In the recession, most members I have spoke with says they will hit on or two larger shows, yet for some reason this did not happen in 2008 and in 2009 we did not go back. First year our barn vetoed that same show… My point is, we as a club should find out more about our members, and what truly drives their support overall. Money is only one piece of the puzzle. It would be very arrogant of us as a club to think if we made our shows so cheap, that people would turn out in groves to support them.
d.Where is the support for the “WP people” who seemingly have to disproportionately pay to qualify and show at Worlds? Sure we can get appointed by the regional clubs and for 2009 this is exactly I and what many of us did…Again what barriers is it we have in getting to the World show?
If you show all-round this would work. If you only show at halter, it will not! If I were to take four halter horses to a show the NPF fee would be $40.00. This would cost me an additional $8.00 more. This system is only beneficial if you show in several classes. If you are going to take premium money from National and Worlds, you should also take it from other venues. What makes ApHC sponsored Trail Rides, Specialty Awards, etc, exempt from a fee to support the club.
I don’t think this will help the Regional Cluds reduce the cost of putting on a show. In our area, as long as the stall fees run between $45-$65 plus $6-$8 a bale for shavings, plus entry fees, office charges-the added $8 for NPF becomes secondary. How does this benifit Halter people at a regional show?
Is your plan to eliminate the added money and purse money per class at Worlds ? If so, why have any money given to specialty awards.
Tom, I think no matter how hard I try people are missing this. Yes if you take 4 horses to show you pay $40 total no matter how many classes you are in. That may or may not cost more depending how many classes you show in.
If you show one horse in 4 classes open you will currently pay $32 with 4 judges with my plan you pay only $10 per horse total for the show(event) .
If you show four horses in 4 classes at this show you would pay $128. My way you pay $40.
Rita you have so much going on in your post I am unsure if you are asking or answering. LOL Let me touch a couple of them.
This does not effect regional club costs other than it might increase entries and participation. They can charge whatever other fees they want.
Halter people will also benifit if they show in multiple classes. If they just show in one class, this is not a good deal for them. 2 or more open classes and it is a good deal for them.
The barrier I refer to is the cost to show. The lower the cost the more people will show.
I do not expect this plan to change the budget much whatsoever, but I think it will change the number of entries and attendance at our regional shows.
We currently do not give enough money away at the World and national show and that is part of the reason I think we should move that money to a place where it is better used. Please see #7 for what money I am talking about. This is not the futurity money you mention.
Bill,
Great idea! I hope the Board will get behind it. My husband and I served on a regional club board for about ten years before we had to take a break, and we still are close to regional club board members in our area. So we know first hand that these clubs are hanging on by their fingernails, and as one who can remember the big Ap shows of 30 years ago, it breaks my heart. Your proposal helps those clubs because it helps make those regional shows more affordable for most exhibitors. I understand the plight of the halter horse owners, but in our area, the riders have been subsidizing the halter horses for quite a while now by being required to show in a halter class to be eligible for the all day fee for performance horses. I can’t help but believe that any financial help for the majority of exhibitors (performance horses) will increase attendance at these shows. The other reason this is a good idea is that we are sticking our heads in the sand if we don’t recognize that the regional clubs cannot continue to afford to put on 4-judge shows. By assessing this fee on a per horse per show basis, rather than a per class per judge basis the National club protects itself from losing revenue when the regional clubs inevitably begin to cut down on the number of judges. As far as the premiums for National and World show winners, I don’t think any of us are showing at those two shows for the money. When we were shopping for stallions for our National and World champion mare, we bargained with the stallion owners on her show record, not life time earnings. As it is, that mare had won over $15,000 in her career, but by far the majority of that money was won at NSBA shows and in futurities/maturities put on by the speciality associations or regional shows. Only a very small portion of her LTE were from National and World show premiums, although she was seldom out of the top 5 in her classes at those venues. So I don’t think that point should stop this motion from passing. I carefully read each of the other posts to this blog, and everyone had valid position on a variety of subjects. But we can’t fix everything at once, and we can’t fix anything if we go broke in the meantime. Let’s get our fiscal house in order at both the National and regional levels first. Then we can address other subjects. The only other thing I would like to see this proposal cover is National club sanctioned events other than shows. Racing and trail riding and perhaps even AACAP exhibitors have their records administered by the ApHC, and I think they should share in the cost of maintaining those records and the overall overhead of the Club. I am unfamiliar with the fees they pay, if any, for those programs, but it needs to be considered in this discussion. Thanks for your service to our breed.
….hummmmmm I dont see my post from Jan 30th????? Please explain!
dar
Rapid River, Mi
http://www.kdjjappaloosas.com
Short of completely doing away with the National Point Fee, this is the best idea to come along and one that we have been pushing for for so many years here in Michigan. As one who usually has 4-6 horses going to shows with 3-4 of us showing them, it will certainly give us some financial relief. As a regional club board member I can see where this will help most of our exhibitors. It may not be that big a savings for the “halter horse only” exhibitors, but then we’ve been helping them all along when we put our horses in Youth, Non Pro AND Open Halter classes. They sure wouldn’t have the numbers they do if it weren’t for some of the rest of us going in all those classes.
I hope you can convince the rest of the ApHC Board to go along with this. It’s long overdue!!
3rd post that wont get posted!!! Obviously just another stunt proving your bias behavior for selective membership participation! . Shame on you Bill Theil! YOU and this kind of behavior is what makes ApHC members leave… Hope you can sleep at night knowing you had a great part in the destruction.
I figured that one would get posted… where are the others I posted?
Not sure if you didn’t hit enter or put your email in or what. You can always email it to me if you can’t get it posted. Good or bad they all get posted supportive or not, as long as they don’t have any bad language or mention viagra (the software stops those) LOL.
Thanks,
Bill
Hey I just found them. They were in the spam folder because you put the link to your website in them. I have posted them for you.
Dear Bill,
A few more things to add to the subject du jour:
* In principle, I support the effort to reframe the national points fee revenue stream into a a better collection system.
* For the due-diligence process prior to a final “yes” or “no,” I would then want to look at some questions like these; please feel free to contribute to what my understandings are so far.
PROBLEM/SOLUTION ANALYSIS
–What is the problem that the proposed solution (PS) would solve in a measurable way?
(The PS would reduce show-participation cost for many, though not all, ApHC breed-show exhibitors.)
–What assumptions are being made?
(That the reduction of cost to breed-show exhibitors will help retain current breed-show exhibitors; that the reduction in cost will prompt more individuals to participate in ApHC breed shows; that the PS will engender a goodwill-factor amongst ApHC members by changing how the total $$-support need is calculated and allocated–that it’s “more fair.”)
–What problems does the PS not solve?
(Doesn’t relieve regional clubs/show management from having to collect, record, and submit fees on behalf of ApHC; doesn’t propose a measurable way to increase total revenue; doesn’t cover whether the per-horse-per-event fee requirement would be extended to other pointskeeping/recordkeeping areas within ApHC, such as single-judge shows, ACAAP, trail/distance, racing.)
–What new problems might the PS create?
(Changes the status quo for National/World Show prize value, likely to cause dissension from those directly affected; if extended to all participation areas of ApHC, would also change status quo there, dissension expected.)
–Where can the PS be adapted to help address concerns that surface during the due-diligence analysis of problem/solution?
(This is the entry point for additional brainstorming any time a PS is offered up for input and refinement.)
–Juli Thorson
–
As an all around person who has been paying$ 100in national fees per show I could show a second horse. A flat fee is a great idea even if the amount has to be higher than $10 to make it work
I am just totally torn on this one. My first reaction was excellent. Then I got to thinking if it was really fair to those that supported the World and National shows?
I am a frequent exhbitor at regional shows so over the course of the summer I would probably save a good $100 -$150 with that money I could add in an additional show. I have also attended worlds on occation and was lucky enough to bring home some money, honestly I didn’t even realize I could win any when I entered I simply went for the glory. If there were no paybacks it probably would not change if I showed at the World that year thats not why I show but I could see it having a negative effect on the regulars out there that have become used to being able to recoup come of their expenses.
Is there no other place to find this money? Someone at some point suggested using the Performance Permit money instead I think THAT would be great. I am not sure the amount woud be nearly enough but I would be much happier to see that program dropped and that money go into the general fund then to see paybacks at Worlds taken away. I do have one question do we give out paybacks in all the classes at Worlds and Nationals reguardless of number of entries? Could we do a combo and add in a rule that no paybacks will be given in classes with less then 10 entries and close the Performance Permit paybacks? Just brain storming as I am only about 60% behind the idea as is.
Amy, thanks for your post. I am open actually to any pool of money if you can think of a better one. I know the performance permit money is not enough, but I will need to run the numbers on your idea and see where things wash out.
Thanks,
Bill
ok just one more thought when I read back alittle bit. What about just doing away with added money for now at Worlds and Nationals and just paying back the $30 and only til 4th place. I know that amount would still not be alot but at least for a win in a decent sized class you would get your entr fee back.
Hi Bill,
Can you clarify for me please regarding the aphc bronze trophies? On the PHF there is a lot of rumor that these have indeed been eliminated? If so may we as aphc members please find out the date this was voted on, to change our trophies and/or eliminate them? Too, who voted for this, what board representatives?
I would think something this important would have to have a vote recorded somewhere?
Of this trophy changing proposal what alternatives were presented to the aphc members? I don’t recall anything being sent out but hey I could of missed this…
Too, what is the budget involved for the bronzes, and how far apart are we to keep the world show trophies in place? are we talking hundreds, thousands, what exactly are we looking at please? in real dollars…
I have heard this rumor before, and would like the facts so we can know either way what is going on. It is not right to have rumors flying around, and by an aphc board memmbers even…seems very unprofessional to me to post this type of thing on a public forum, but with no data, facts, dates, you name it. All it does is upset members and creates more stupid rumors. IMO that is not professional conduct of a board member… if a board member is going to post on a public forum please use common sense!!! And present the facts… aphc members deserve better communication then speculation and rumors I think…
rkn
I will need to check on this. I know we didn’t vote on it specifically, not sure if it was in the overall budget. I suggest you email steve taylor (ceo@appaloosa (dot)com your questions also as I don’t want to get this board off topic. I will ask the question also and email you what I hear.
Thanks,
Bill
Thank you Bill, I appreciate your overall professionalism very much! and your insight to helping us all find solutions for our ApHC. I know I want to help, and will help in any way possible to support out aphc! together we will get through this recession and become stronger as a whole from the experience!
rita
Bill–
Another $$ outgo area to look at could be the cost of giving out subsequent medallions after a horse wins one at a level (bronze, silver, gold, diamond). Duplicate medallions were not part of the original medallion concept–they were an add-on, later in the game (as were year-end medallions).
I think it’s worth mentioning that the entire medallion program was installed prior to, and as a substitute for a national point system. When it comes to awarding prizes to National and World show winners, there is redundancy here that may really have outlived its cost/benefit ratio–particularly since every class winner also gets a trophy.
–Juli Thorson
That is a very good point though I know the medallion cost is very little per medallion of course when you add up a bunch of little numbers it might become significant.
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks for the consideration.
It very well may be time to investigate the annual cost of the entire medallion program, including the cost of packaging and shipping them as awards. This is an era in which every “institution within the institution” is fair game for scrutiny.
–JST
I am all for saving money, but not if it means losing something else. I don’t understand what the fees pay for now and what the ramifications will be if that money is no longer available. Also, what is the intent of changing the fees? Is it to increase participation at shows? If so, which ones-Regional, National, World? Or is there another intent? My daughter and I currently show at the Regional level. How will this change affect us?
The fees people pay at the world and national show go into a payback pot see #7. I do not think there will be any issues with loosing those payouts, as currently the checks are very small. The advantage to the regional club is thast should be more entries and more exhibitors in each class which will be better for the regional and World and National Shows. It will effect you because you could show in more clases for less national point fees if this passes.
Thanks,
Bill
So Bill I did alittle reading and thinking over the weekend and unless I have my figures wrong I think the club could just cut the added money at worlds and totally offset the money collected from the NPF. I was under the impression that the club collected about $300k in NPF per year. looking through the classes at worlds that $300 would be added to doesn’t that figure alone come out close to the $300K mark? maybe alittle shy but if you just reduced the NPF to the $10 flat fee that you are suggesting and eliminated the added money at the World show I would think it should be close to a wash. And you would still be able to payback premiums at both Nationals and Worlds with the $30 per entry money. Paybacks at Worlds would just be smaller then in previous years but at least they would still exist and I would think if you took paybacks to only 4 place as is common place for paybacks the top people would probably not even notice much difference in the amount they are taking home as its not being spread out so far. Make Sense? or was I told the wrong amount of total income from the NPF?
Your numbers are a little off from what the APHC has told me. The total premium payback is closer to $100,000, and that is why we need the $10 fee per horse to make up the difference.
Thanks,
Bill
Your right i added a zero. I would still wonder if you could get away with just taking out the added money and then getting rid of the Performance Permit program then making the NPF a flat $10 would come close to being even. We must remember that the point of lowering that fee is to get more out showing so not that you can totally count on it but I would hope with the lower fee you would actually see more horses at the shows which would make that income higher then expected.
Just to update you this idea did not make it out of the regional club committee. ALthough people love the idea they do not like taking the money from the payback. So all we need to do is find another $125,000 or so.
Thanks,
Bill
buenas. como estas dejame confesarte que yo no estaba buscando acerca de lo que escribiste y es que la verdad a mi este tema no me gusta para nada, pero te felicito porque la manera en que escribiste me fascino. Por primera vez he encontrado contenido digno en la red. Un saludo.