Posting player entry fee breakdown: PDGA requirements?

[txmxer]

Hold the pickles please...

 

[ChrisWoj]

Since (it sounds like) you're asking for the detailed nuances of ice, paint, donations, etc. to be itemized, the aforementioned report isn't likely enough to satisfy your curiosity. So, again, there's no point for a TD/volunteer to do the extra work of preparing a semi-accurate TD report.

No, I explicitly noted early in the thread that I was not asking for this. One of my first posts. You were too busy jumping straight to taking personal shots at me to notice that, though.

So, your request isn't so much unreasonable as it is unrealistic, which circles all the way back to you wanting to impose a global solution that is only "right for you" when it doesn't really fit the rest of the community.

I also noted early in the thread, when discussing general society and the idea of this sort of transparency in our businesses, that this is a multi-generational adjustment. I noted that small steps need to happen first. The same would go with integration in disc golf. Obviously there's still a whole (shrinking) generation of TDs that didn't grow up with computers, and this couldn't be something you demand from every tournament right now. Frankly you seem to be too busy trying to come up with every possible reason not to be transparent that you've not taken any time to give a good damn what I actually said.

As an aside, we felt financial reporting was an issue because of some residual trust issues in our community with previous officers. As our events grew, and exceeded expectations relative to player experience, the call for financial reporting disappeared.

So there were residual trust issues, and there were calls for financial reporting? And then once the events were well run, you decided that a potential "pre-emptive" strategy to minimize that sort of a problem was fine to throw away because you "exceeded expectations"? And what if your community elects officers that people do not trust again, and they run events that aren't as good as you currently maintain and those calls come up again? Would having the financials not pre-empt at the least that avenue for mistrust?

Again, supporting biscoe's points that an event is about the overall experience. Once you start itemizing, you're nickel and diming everything and it just leads to a downward spiral.

If you let it, sure. I don't know WHY you'd let it? A "downward spiral" or a "slippery slope" is something that you recognize and acknowledge so that you don't head down it, it is not something you use as an excuse not to do something good in the first place.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I guess I don't have the same reverence for "transparency", or feel it's some sort of magic elixer that makes everything better, which strikes me as sort of a Zuckerbergish notion. I've paid for all sorts of recreational activities, run by volunteers and not-for-profits and for-profits, and just don't see them being improved by seeing the balance sheet.

A charitable event should be transparent as to the charitable donation. A club-run event should be transparent to the club, or at least its board. But not everything, to everyone. That just gives the rabble a chance to rouse, while now improving things for anyone else -- least of all, the very people making those events happen.

But, hey, if my lack of transparency runs off players for whom the tournament and payouts weren't enough, I can live with that. And if some other TD wants to open his books, as a sort of added value, that's fine with me too.

This has less to do with a good TD, than it does with establishing a standard that will allow quicker recognition of the bad ones - minimizing the damage that can be done by those who would take advantage of the players. As for giving the "rabble a chance to rouse" - Good. I'm okay with the "rabble" being given every chance to "rouse." I don't recognize that as problematic at all. I deal with "rabble" "rousing" every damn week, working with over 100 educators and over 1000 parents, and when I have to respond to their eMails I appreciate that they're invested in our program. And my job is much easier when I can show them the documentation that assuages their frustrations.

As for your weird Zuckerberg comment - huh? Zuckerberg has spent 15 years being the opposite of transparent. The whole basis of the first big lawsuit against FB was built on Zuckerberg's complete lack of transparency in his practices being a big part of how he stole the tech for Facebook.

Where do the following fit in the spreadsheet?
Organized competition
Course that is event ready
Event info disseminated in advance and correct
Timely start and reasonable turnaround times between rounds
Payouts sent and td report prepped and sent in a timely fashion
TD and staff who are helpful and capable of answering questions correctly

I could go on all day about this stuff which is (to me) the stuff that actually matters about an event. Quibble all day long over how much the squirt of ketchup cost on the cheeseburger if you like but these are the things that make the event cheeseburger taste good and their absence on the spreadsheet merely reflects a lack of value placed on them- same as in the idiotic tour standards that define events almost solely by the amount of condiments on the burger. I choose not to devalue the truly important things by not itemizing the costs of the necessary but unimportant junk. IMO as long as you provide a tasty cheeseburger for the price the diners leave happy and no one cares what you paid for the pickles.

I mean, look, you can make it this difficult on yourself if you want - if you've got no damn rational sense. And you can keep pretending I want everything itemized down to the individual drops of condiment on a burger if you want, with regard to specifically disc golf tournaments. Maybe that'd be nice - one day. But there are human limits, and there are things that can be lumped together. As far as I can see - this example doesn't apply to what I've said I consider ideal, given things I've already said in this thread.

 

[DavidSauls]

As for your weird Zuckerberg comment - huh? Zuckerberg has spent 15 years being the opposite of transparent. The whole basis of the first big lawsuit against FB was built on Zuckerberg's complete lack of transparency in his practices being a big part of how he stole the tech for Facebook.
.

I meant Zuckerbergish, not in the sense of the Facebook company being transparent, but all the users being transparent. Everyone share everything about themselves with their friends and "friends", and the world will be a better place. That's the glories of social media that he promoted, from the beginning, to the point that he drug his feet on putting any restrictions on user activities.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I meant Zuckerbergish, not in the sense of the Facebook company being transparent, but all the users being transparent. Everyone share everything about themselves with their friends and "friends", and the world will be a better place. That's the glories of social media that he promoted, from the beginning, to the point that he drug his feet on putting any restrictions on user activities.

Ah gotcha, I recognize it when you say it is more Facebookish than Zuckerbergish. The front that Zuckerberg created for his underhanded bull**** is emblematic of why businesses should be held to a much higher level of transparency.

 

[Golden Tuna]

So, to recap,

You started this thread because you were unsure about a requirement YOU THINK should exist, but doesn't. After consulting the experienced volunteers here, you learn you were "imagining a requirement that never existed.

There have been dozens of posts from experts with decades of experience across hundreds of charity, sanctioned, and unsanctioned events sharing experiences and why such a form/report does not exist, is difficult to get accurate, is irrelevant (to the masses).

Additionally, circling back to the OP, the PDGA, our highest governing body, doesn't itemize such things in their report templates, yet, you persist, this IS THE WAY!...

You're so blinded by a couple snarky digs that you refuse to see the logic being laid out in front of you by multiple people. But, it sounds like you've made up your mind, so I guess you have what you came here for.

 

[ChrisWoj]

So, to recap,

You started this thread because you were unsure about a requirement YOU THINK should exist, but doesn't. After consulting the experienced volunteers here, you learn you were "imagining a requirement that never existed.

Correct, really would have been great if the editorializing wouldn't have happened - as it gave numbskulls like you the opening to pretend to read stuff and then argue against points that nobody is making.

There have been dozens of posts from experts with decades of experience across hundreds of charity, sanctioned, and unsanctioned events sharing experiences and why such a form/report does not exist, is difficult to get accurate, is irrelevant (to the masses).

Additionally, circling back to the OP, the PDGA, our highest governing body, doesn't itemize such things in their report templates, yet, you persist, this IS THE WAY!...

And I disagree with them. I'm sorry that that hurt you so much that you felt the best way to engage the conversation was to be a ****bag from the first line you posted. I've got, at this point, some years of experience both in and out of disc golf organizing thousands of people and I think the quibbling over the idea of transparency that came up from the first response to the entire thread is a bunch of hullabaloo over something fairly simple.

You're so blinded by a couple snarky digs that you refuse to see the logic being laid out in front of you by multiple people. But, it sounds like you've made up your mind, so I guess you have what you came here for.

Oh yes, the wisdom of people choosing to argue that something is bad because they insist I'm asking for things that I have not in fact asked for.

 

[txmxer]

This has less to do with a good TD, than it does with establishing a standard that will allow quicker recognition of the bad ones - minimizing the damage that can be done by those who would take advantage of the players.

Take a second to consider the above. Good TD's provide good/accurate reporting and validate they are good TD's. Bad TD's that take advantage of the consumers lie/cheat on the report and appear to be good.

Okay, so now we need auditors. In Oct. 2022 there are about 850 events listed on the PDGA events page. That's probably on the high side for a given month, so let's say there are an average of 500 sanctioned events per month or 6000 per year. Auditing 10% of the events would be 600 audits. No idea how long it would take to complete an audit, but say 8 hours each? That's two full time audiotors plus support staff, say one admin. Salaries and benefits that's about $500k per year to audit a fraction of the sanctioned events to insure compliance. So, there is now an additional $5 fee (or some number) added to each sanctioned event to cover auditing fees whether your particular event is audited or not.

I could be off on the numbers for sure, but some audits would take a lot longer than others and particularly if the audit turns up questionable reporting.

But, let's be fair to the TD's. Since we are eliminating capitalism, they need to get paid a reasonable amount as well as the volunteers (now event staff). Yes, you paid your event fee, but the report shows that didn't cover the expenses. In addition to the original entry fee you get a post event charge up to 100% of your original entry fee. That charge will be applied when you enter the event and any portion not required to cover event expenses is refunded to the players. Maybe it goes in to an escrow account with the PDGA that the TD's can draw from post event? If you use up your escrow playing events then your next event you have to recharge your escrow. At the end of the year, you can get a refund for any unused funds.

No disrespect intended Chris. I appreciate your thoroughness in researching issues you post about. I am attempting to provide another/additional perspective on this subject.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Take a second to consider the above. Good TD's provide good/accurate reporting and validate they are good TD's. Bad TD's that take advantage of the consumers lie/cheat on the report and appear to be good.

Okay, so now we need auditors. In Oct. 2022 there are about 850 events listed on the PDGA events page. That's probably on the high side for a given month, so let's say there are an average of 500 sanctioned events per month or 6000 per year. Auditing 10% of the events would be 600 audits. No idea how long it would take to complete an audit, but say 8 hours each? That's two full time audiotors plus support staff, say one admin. Salaries and benefits that's about $500k per year to audit a fraction of the sanctioned events to insure compliance. So, there is now an additional $5 fee (or some number) added to each sanctioned event to cover auditing fees whether your particular event is audited or not.

I could be off on the numbers for sure, but some audits would take a lot longer than others and particularly if the audit turns up questionable reporting.

But, let's be fair to the TD's. Since we are eliminating capitalism, they need to get paid a reasonable amount as well as the volunteers (now event staff). Yes, you paid your event fee, but the report shows that didn't cover the expenses. In addition to the original entry fee you get a post event charge up to 100% of your original entry fee. That charge will be applied when you enter the event and any portion not required to cover event expenses is refunded to the players. Maybe it goes in to an escrow account with the PDGA that the TD's can draw from post event? If you use up your escrow playing events then your next event you have to recharge your escrow. At the end of the year, you can get a refund for any unused funds.

No disrespect intended Chris. I appreciate your thoroughness in researching issues you post about. I am attempting to provide another/additional perspective on this subject.

My biggest problem with the people arguing against me, and this definitely applies to your self in this post, is that you're primarily arguing against what I want by stating that things that I'm not even asking for are way too odious. I absolutely never stated that the PDGA should be running audits, and I don't know where you guys get this stuff. Whether we're referring to you in this post or St. Louis Tuna in his post saying what I'm asking for shouldn't be done because he couldn't accurately identify a "break even" point for his tournaments in audits or Biscoe saying that a disc golf TD can't itemize down to the tiniest possible item - in every case people are choosing to bring up things that would be emblematic of going way above and beyond even what I'm asking.

Its all a variant of slippery-slope fallacy, where doing good is not worth it because its too difficult to figure out how to do perfect, when in reality I'm not even remotely stating I believe perfection should be the goal.

 

[txmxer]

My biggest problem with the people arguing against me, and this definitely applies to your self in this post, is that you're primarily arguing against what I want by stating that things that I'm not even asking for are way too odious. I absolutely never stated that the PDGA should be running audits, and I don't know where you guys get this stuff. Whether we're referring to you in this post or St. Louis Tuna in his post saying what I'm asking for shouldn't be done because he couldn't accurately identify a "break even" point for his tournaments in audits or Biscoe saying that a disc golf TD can't itemize down to the tiniest possible item - in every case people are choosing to bring up things that would be emblematic of going way above and beyond even what I'm asking.

Its all a variant of slippery-slope fallacy, where doing good is not worth it because its too difficult to figure out how to do perfect, when in reality I'm not even remotely stating I believe perfection should be the goal.

I didn't say you called for audits, but what is the point of the more detailed breakdown if it is fabricated? I understand how you might claim that is a slippery slope argument, but I disagree. If you want to have transparent reporting, the only way to do that is to validate the reporting is accurate.

If there is no auditing of the reports to validate them, what is to stop the "bad TD's" from submitting false reports?

PS: that doesn't imply anything close to requiring perfection. You won't reach good without checks and balances.

 

[ChrisWoj]

If there is no auditing of the reports to validate them, what is to stop the "bad TD's" from submitting false reports?

The existence of outside information. A tournament director can falsify information, but the players can check that information. If a player is wrong about some information being falsely-reported, the tournament director can easily provide supporting documentation to the contrary. One thing's for sure - the number of posts by certain people in this very thread shows me that the time of day exists to defend any false-accusation that might happen to come up. So the time-component associated with our volunteer tournament directors certainly isn't an argument against.

 

[txmxer]

The existence of outside information. A tournament director can falsify information, but the players can check that information. If a player is wrong about some information being falsely-reported, the tournament director can easily provide supporting documentation to the contrary. One thing's for sure - the number of posts by certain people in this very thread shows me that the time of day exists to defend any false-accusation that might happen to come up. So the time-component associated with our volunteer tournament directors certainly isn't an argument against.

Let's walk through that scenario. A player suspects the reporting is inaccurate. Does that player complain to the TD and ask for documentation? So the player is acting as auditor? Or does the player submit a complaint to the PDGA and then they perform an audit?

If the player is unsatisfied with the documentation he then goes to the PDGA and submits a formal complaint? And thus the need for someone capable of performing an audit?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Let's walk through that scenario. A player suspects the reporting is inaccurate. Does that player complain to the TD and ask for documentation? So the player is acting as auditor? Or does the player submit a complaint to the PDGA and then they perform an audit?

If the player is unsatisfied with the documentation he then goes to the PDGA and submits a formal complaint? And thus the need for someone capable of performing an audit?

Ideally the player asks the TD before bringing it before the local community. While I noted that I felt the PDGA should require tournament directors to post their costs to some minimal standard, I also did not state that the PDGA should be required to police the accuracy of the repots. The requirement, from my perspective, is one aligned toward the playing community's possession of the ability to function as oversight. The PDGA would only get involved if nothing is provided, but would not be required to necessarily police the depth of the report or the accuracy, though the PDGA could use such reports as evidence if the players felt that overall the events were scamming the players in some fashion. The requirement to report, from my perspective, is more about providing the players with information vs the PDGA's need to function in a role as oversight of the accuracy of the reports, except for where the players are bringing to them a significant concern that is supported by the report as opposed to stemming from the report.

 

[biscoe]

My biggest problem with the people arguing against me, and this definitely applies to your self in this post, is that you're primarily arguing against what I want by stating that things that I'm not even asking for are way too odious. I absolutely never stated that the PDGA should be running audits, and I don't know where you guys get this stuff. Whether we're referring to you in this post or St. Louis Tuna in his post saying what I'm asking for shouldn't be done because he couldn't accurately identify a "break even" point for his tournaments in audits or Biscoe saying that a disc golf TD can't itemize down to the tiniest possible item - in every case people are choosing to bring up things that would be emblematic of going way above and beyond even what I'm asking.

Its all a variant of slippery-slope fallacy, where doing good is not worth it because its too difficult to figure out how to do perfect, when in reality I'm not even remotely stating I believe perfection should be the goal.

I have not said that at all. I have repeatedly said it SHOULD NOT be done or expected and why I believe that to be the case not that it COULD NOT. I have also said I can produce the financials of a run of the mill C tier in the time it takes to type them out but since that is not what you have set in your head I am saying you have evidently chosen to ignore it. I have had enough of the name calling and mischaracterization of my posts. I'm out.

 

[DavidSauls]

Ideally the player asks the TD before bringing it before the local community. While I noted that I felt the PDGA should require tournament directors to post their costs to some minimal standard, I also did not state that the PDGA should be required to police the accuracy of the repots. The requirement, from my perspective, is one aligned toward the playing community's possession of the ability to function as oversight. The PDGA would only get involved if nothing is provided, but would not be required to necessarily police the depth of the report or the accuracy, though the PDGA could use such reports as evidence if the players felt that overall the events were scamming the players in some fashion. The requirement to report, from my perspective, is more about providing the players with information vs the PDGA's need to function in a role as oversight of the accuracy of the reports, except for where the players are bringing to them a significant concern that is supported by the report as opposed to stemming from the report.

If the players are receiving what they were promised when they paid their entry, how can they be "being scammed"?

Furthermore, without a balance sheet, it's pretty easy to see that, as a group, the players are (1) receiving virtually their entire entry fee back, in players packs and payouts, thus virtually playing for free while (2) receiving all the benefits of playing in an organized event. I'm hard-pressed to describe that as "being scammed", either.

Anything that affects the payout is reflected in the TD report to the PDGA, and for charity events we send the PDGA documentation of the charitable donation.

As a TD, I think that's sufficient.

As a player, I also think that's sufficient.

 

[dmoore1998]

I didn't say you called for audits, but what is the point of the more detailed breakdown if it is fabricated? I understand how you might claim that is a slippery slope argument, but I disagree. If you want to have transparent reporting, the only way to do that is to validate the reporting is accurate.

If there is no auditing of the reports to validate them, what is to stop the "bad TD's" from submitting false reports?

PS: that doesn't imply anything close to requiring perfection. You won't reach good without checks and balances.

So I agree it needs audited...but I think players can audit it just fine themselves as a group. We're talking primarily about identifying bad TDs...players who play a decent number of events and can see what's in the player pack can probably do a decent job of estimating TD costs already. Catching people lying is one of the greatest strengths of the internet. Once you document something, you paint yourself into an absolute corner if you made it up.

 

[ru4por]

The idea just becomes too much for publication on a tournament page, IMO.

Off the top of my head.

Amortized

Two pop up canopies
6 fold out tables
Fence posts
Post driver
Wheel spray paint can holder
Practice baskets
Coolers
Feather flags and yearly banners
Disc inventory boxes
Tool boxes (large and small) as TD supply boxes
Air horn
Marketing (we support area clubs with anything from CTP's to permanent hole sponsorship)
Storage shed
Shovel, rake, brooms, loppers, pruners
Cashbox
Speaker and mic

Tournament Costs

CTP flags
Printing of boxes of CTP cards, scorecards, signs, side game instructions, player meeting info, check in sheet...
Lamination of some of the above
Spray paint
Tournament banners
Volunteer pizza
Park fee for closing course
PortaPotty
Park shelter fee
Player packs
PDGA fees (where applicable)
PRO Payout
AM Payout
Volunteer gas, time, expenses

I am not even sure how to figure running 3-5 leagues a season, into the above transparency, for posting on a tournament page. Both debit and credit.

I don't know where you draw the line. As a club we strive for transparency. That is what our meetings are for. We publish monthly redacted minutes and our full financials are discussed at every, monthly club meeting. Our club meetings are posted to a couple different communication platforms. If you are really interested in the financials......come on down.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I have not said that at all. I have repeatedly said it SHOULD NOT be done or expected and why I believe that to be the case not that it COULD NOT. I have also said I can produce the financials of a run of the mill C tier in the time it takes to type them out but since that is not what you have set in your head I am saying you have evidently chosen to ignore it. I have had enough of the name calling and mischaracterization of my posts. I'm out.

You misread what I said. I was saying that you said I was expecting that. And you used that as the point to argue against. The problem is - that. was. not. my. ask. You have evidently chosen not to read my posts, and instead argue against a concept that no one was arguing for in the first place.

 

[txmxer]

So I agree it needs audited...but I think players can audit it just fine themselves as a group. We're talking primarily about identifying bad TDs...players who play a decent number of events and can see what's in the player pack can probably do a decent job of estimating TD costs already. Catching people lying is one of the greatest strengths of the internet. Once you document something, you paint yourself into an absolute corner if you made it up.

I disagree. Claiming to catch a person lying is one of the strengths of the internet. Creating drama with unverified/unverifiable accusations is one of the strengths of the internet.

In any competition settings there is always someone that is unhappy about something. Giving that person/people tools to create headaches for a TD they decided is the cause of them being disgruntled is a way of life for some.

As far as catching a bad TD actually lying? I doubt it would be as obvious as you think. There are explicit items that either match or they do not (pro-payouts). It's all the things that underlie a tournament that are vague costs. How much did the TD pay for the players pack versus how much the claimed value is? The porta johns, the water buckets, the gas receipts, the signage, etc.

I haven't run events, but this thread got me thinking about the numbers--if someone wants to impart more accuracy to these numbers, please do.
You've got an event that has a total cash flow of $10-20k. Of that, only a fraction might be in the areas where additional transparency is being sought. Move the numbers around by 10% and how are you or anyone else going to know if that's right? Is a bag of ice $5 or $5.50? How many bags was that? 10,000 feet of OB rope...oh wait, most of that was leftover or re-use from a previous event. It's listed in the financials, but did you actually check the receipts?

A real and meaningful audit looking at the documentation would be required to "easily" catch the cheaters and even then it is questionable whether you could reasonably assert that someone pushed the numbers by a few (say 10) percent here and there. Throw in a few gas and meal receipts and you've moved the discretionary spending by 100's of dollars.

 

[DavidSauls]

I haven't run events, but this thread got me thinking about the numbers--if someone wants to impart more accuracy to these numbers, please do.

I'll only help, inasmuch as to say that I can't be answer. The numbers can vary wildly from event to event.

One event may pay a thousand or more to rent the course; the next may pay nothing.

One event may be run by someone with a deep wholesale price discount on merchandise; another may have little or none.

One event may obtain lots of cash and/or merchandise from donations; another may not solicit donations, at all.

When I've used my own TD experience in discussions -- in club-run events and events on public courses and events on a private course -- many times I've been set straight by other TDs in much different situations.