How deep should a Payout Be?

[JC17393]

I am aware of that. It's that exact system that I take issue with. It's one of those things where if its always been that way, then we should always do it that way. And of course it's sanctioned by the governing body so it will never change.

Return of value is mandated by rule, but the cost is dictated by TDs not rule. No reason whatsoever a B-tier has to cost $60-70+ for Ams just to return $60-70+ of value to them as required by rule. Charging $20-25 and giving $20-25+ value back to each player still fulfills the PDGA requirements without breaking the bank.

Also, those guidelines are in regard to net entry fees, not the gross. Charging $35 for an event and returning $20 of value to the player is fine for an B-tier if the other $15 is covering fees and expenses (player fees, course rentals/reservations, etc). However, the expectation of many players is that the TD/tournament has to give them tangible value for that other $15 as well. And when they don't get it, they get vocal. They're incorrect and ill-informed, but since when has that stopped anyone?

 

[JC17393]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news (for all the holier-then-thou amateur status people), but if you turned am tourneys into trophy only, hardly anybody would show up.

I've been running a trophy-only (with a modest player pack) amateur B-tier for 15 years and we sell out every year. People will play because people want to play. The myth that our sport can't survive without payouts to amateurs really needs to stop. It would be different, but it would work just fine.

 

[biscoe]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news (for all the holier-then-thou amateur status people), but if you turned am tourneys into trophy only, hardly anybody would show up.

I disagree- if you are running a good event otherwise on a good course you don't need to bribe players to come.

 

[biscoe]

Heck, i run a PRO event at Hawk Hollow that is virtually trophy only (VTI) and has a 20 year wait list to get in. Most of the top players in the mid-atlantic region as well as some more national talent come back year after year.

 

[Karl]

Slight thread jack...

Who are we kidding? There are no "AMs" in dg and there are no "Pros" in dg (except for a couple of players hoping that 'greener pastures are come upon' by them before they get too old to compete and thus MIGHT make a living before they start worrying about retirement) and a couple of handfuls of manufacturers, organizers, and designers who actually DO 'make their living from dg'.

Nix the whole "Pro / AM" thing. Run tournaments where people have a couple of options regarding "entry fees".
1. EVERYONE pays in enough to cover ALL TD expenses. And MAYBE a little for said TD themselves.
2. Additional 'pay in' (ante up more money) if a player wishes to "gamble their money to potentially win other player's money".
3. No additional 'pay in'.
4. Divisions by age, ratings, etc. (as we have now)...but NO split outs re: "Pro" or "Am" (will cut the number of divisions in half) !

 

[DavidSauls]

I disagree- if you are running a good event otherwise on a good course you don't need to bribe players to come.

Well, perhaps a GREAT course.

 

[biscoe]

Well, perhaps a GREAT course.

Trophy only Next Generation event at Loriella filled in no time. Course is very good but not great.

 

[DavidSauls]

Is that low-entry, trophy-only? Or high-entry, big-players-pack, trophy only?

I suspect it varies by locality, and hope the former catches on. The only ones I've seen around here have been on great courses.

 

[JRW III]

Return of value is mandated by rule, but the cost is dictated by TDs not rule. No reason whatsoever a B-tier has to cost $60-70+ for Ams just to return $60-70+ of value to them as required by rule. Charging $20-25 and giving $20-25+ value back to each player still fulfills the PDGA requirements without breaking the bank.

Also, those guidelines are in regard to net entry fees, not the gross. Charging $35 for an event and returning $20 of value to the player is fine for an B-tier if the other $15 is covering fees and expenses (player fees, course rentals/reservations, etc). However, the expectation of many players is that the TD/tournament has to give them tangible value for that other $15 as well. And when they don't get it, they get vocal. They're incorrect and ill-informed, but since when has that stopped anyone?

I completely agree with Am fees not needing to be $60-$70.

However, the return of value rule does hamstring the TD. It basically forces this method of making money by selling merchandise. Would be nice to see lower costs, trophy only, but that can be challenging when the TD needs to raise a certain amount of funds from the merch sales to cover the various items that can not be backed out when calculating the net fee. In addition, some tournaments use this to cover the added cash to Pro.

And to clarify, not all expenses can be used in determining the net fee. From the PDGA: "Net Entry Fees = Gross Entry Fees minus the pass-through fees ONLY. Pass through Fees are: PDGA Per-Player Fee, Greens Fee, Regional or Series Fee only, NOT expenses."

 

[JRW III]

As to the original question, I think the answer depends on the situation. Some tournaments do well with the deep format, others would do well with a more shallow format. I wish the PDGA standards were a little broader to let the TD, and local market, determine what is best.

 

[jeverett]

And to clarify, not all expenses can be used in determining the net fee. From the PDGA: "Net Entry Fees = Gross Entry Fees minus the pass-through fees ONLY. Pass through Fees are: PDGA Per-Player Fee, Greens Fee, Regional or Series Fee only, NOT expenses."

The above is indeed correct, as of 2015 I believe? Those revisions/clarifications to what can be taken out of entry fees with regard to meeting payout minimums were debated about a lot when they came out (I personally don't agree with them), but they are what they are.

 

[JC17393]

The above is indeed correct, as of 2015 I believe? Those revisions/clarifications to what can be taken out of entry fees with regard to meeting payout minimums were debated about a lot when they came out (I personally don't agree with them), but they are what they are.

It's been correct for longer, but was clearly delineated just a couple years ago.

And as for expenses, there's a lot that the "greens fee" can be an umbrella for, IMO. Course rental/reservation being chief among them, but also any costs associated with that course rental/reservation (such as insurance if necessary). Basically anything that you can't have use of the course without should fall under the heading of greens fee.

I have to disagree with the notion that the return of value rule hamstrings TDs. They're not required to make the money to cover expenses and added pro cash from merch sold in player packs and payouts. It is certainly helpful, but it does not have to be the sole way to raise money. That's what sponsorships are supposed to be for. A few modest sponsorships can go a long way toward keeping the am entry fee, player pack and/or payout in reasonable range without violating the return of value requirements.

I think some clubs/TDs have just become too complacent in the practice of fundraising via the am merch sales that they aren't doing enough to rustle up sponsorships, and find it convenient to point to the payout requirements as reason to continue to escalate the am fees.

 

[DavidSauls]

I completely agree with Am fees not needing to be $60-$70.

However, the return of value rule does hamstring the TD. It basically forces this method of making money by selling merchandise. Would be nice to see lower costs, trophy only, but that can be challenging when the TD needs to raise a certain amount of funds from the merch sales to cover the various items that can not be backed out when calculating the net fee. In addition, some tournaments use this to cover the added cash to Pro.

It depends on what formula we're using.

A B-tier might be charging $60 for Ams, paying out 100% in merch for players pack and prizes. They might be $20 in wholesale/retail margin, per player, which goes to trophies, expenses, profits, or the pro purse.

If the same event charged $20 per player and didn't pay out in prizes or player packs, they'd have the same money to apply to expenses, etc.

And a lot less headaches.

And some happier players, particularly me. But the crucial question is whether they'd have as many players.

 

[JRW III]

And as for expenses, there's a lot that the "greens fee" can be an umbrella for, IMO. Course rental/reservation being chief among them, but also any costs associated with that course rental/reservation (such as insurance if necessary). Basically anything that you can't have use of the course without should fall under the heading of greens fee.

What can and can't be called green fees and pass through fees is a debate for another thread.


I can agree with the two statements below:

They're not required to make the money to cover expenses and added pro cash from merch sold in player packs and payouts. It is certainly helpful, but it does not have to be the sole way to raise money. A few modest sponsorships can go a long way toward keeping the am entry fee, player pack and/or payout in reasonable range without violating the return of value requirements.

Where I differ from your opinion, is that I do not think it should be required for a TD to get sponsorships to cover tournament expenses. It is absolutely great for the ones that do, but I think that by making this a implied requirement, it leads to faster burn out of TDs, and then loss of possible tournaments. As we grow, I think there is sufficient demand to play in tournaments that the players can pay a fee sufficient to cover the tournament expenses.

 

[JRW III]

It depends on what formula we're using.

A B-tier might be charging $60 for Ams, paying out 100% in merch for players pack and prizes. They might be $20 in wholesale/retail margin, per player, which goes to trophies, expenses, profits, or the pro purse.

If the same event charged $20 per player and didn't pay out in prizes or player packs, they'd have the same money to apply to expenses, etc.

And a lot less headaches.

And some happier players, particularly me. But the crucial question is whether they'd have as many players.

Exactly the scenario that I think should be an option. But if you do $20 per player with no prizes or players pack, you do not meet the % payout requirement.

[Unless there is an existing rule that I am not aware of regarding trophy only being excluded from maintaining the % payout requirement]

 

[bradharris]

Where I differ from your opinion, is that I do not think it should be required for a TD to get sponsorships to cover tournament expenses. It is absolutely great for the ones that do, but I think that by making this a implied requirement, it leads to faster burn out of TDs, and then loss of possible tournaments. As we grow, I think there is sufficient demand to play in tournaments that the players can pay a fee sufficient to cover the tournament expenses.

That's fine for a TD that wants to run a C-Tier. They just have to make the entry fees high enough that 15% can cover expenses. If a TD wants to sanction at a higher level, it's going to require more work to pull in some sponsor money to offset costs. If a TD is not willing to put in that effort, then there's no reason he should be running a higher tier event in the first place.

 

[DavidSauls]

Exactly the scenario that I think should be an option. But if you do $20 per player with no prizes or players pack, you do not meet the % payout requirement.

[Unless there is an existing rule that I am not aware of regarding trophy only being excluded from maintaining the % payout requirement]

I believe you're right.

 

[Dcinmd]

Is that low-entry, trophy-only? Or high-entry, big-players-pack, trophy only?

I suspect it varies by locality, and hope the former catches on. The only ones I've seen around here have been on great courses.

$53 for Advance, and $43 for Int. Not sure why rec is cheaper than the juniors division.

https://www.discgolfscene.com/tournaments/Next_Generation_Tour_at_Loriella_Park_Presented_by_Latitude_64_2016

 

[Dcinmd]

Here is the player pack / prize details.

The next Generation tour is a 12 event point series where the top prize is a free plane ticket to Europe to play disc golf in 2017 as well as the entry fee to the event selected by the winner. You will need to compete in 4 of the twelve events to qualify for the overall series. The tour will also be giving away more unique prizes such as entry fees to large events, PDGA memberships and other surprises. Feldberg will be working with companies in an effort to offer sponsorships to the overall top finishers in the series.

Every event has player packages that value over the entry fee! Also each event will have a collectors art stamp drawn by Synthya Whitaker. It will be an Animal series. The first one was an Arizona Bobcat. Preview of second event, it will be a California Fox. Each animal will represent the area the event is held.
Take a look at our schedule and start making your travel plans ASAP. You could play in Europe next Summer!'

 

[runningDoc]

one way to do for ams is to just bypass pdga. wickham park on Hartford ct has the ACT tournies (two days two separate tournies of 90 people). it's. not pdga sanctioned.

it's only $20 and the players pack is epic (sometimes up to 4 discs stickers minis shirt comics pencil sharpie ect) and trophies to top 3 only per division.

it's the way they raise money for the local club as well as the gathering of new players as well as all the established ams (who eventually become top open players) in the region.

mind you wickham eventually holds an A tier there later in the year (which attracts top pros if the weekend before vibrant/maple).

having played in both the ACT and GHDGO both are run with the same professionalism and similarly sell out within the days of opening registration.