Posting player entry fee breakdown: PDGA requirements?

[ChrisWoj]

I'm supporting the Rocket Disc Golf sport club in running their annual fundraiser event. I had thought that there was some PDGA requirement regarding transparency - posting how much of the entry fees would go to what (payout, fundraising, player pack, etc.).

I'm not seeing that in any of the documents I'm looking over.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or am I imagining a requirement that was never there?

 

[biscoe]

You are imagining something that has never existed and should never exist.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You are imagining something that has never existed and should never exist.

Why should it never exist? Seems a fairly simple element of transparency.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Why should it never exist? Seems a fairly simple element of transparency.

You don't have to post your actuals, just meet financial guidelines or requirements specified for your tier in the Tour Standards doc.

 

[biscoe]

Why should it never exist? Seems a fairly simple element of transparency.

Do you get an itemized cost list on any other purchases you make? Event is either worth it as a whole or not.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Do you get an itemized cost list on any other purchases you make? Event is either worth it as a whole or not.

I don't. That IS indeed problematic, IMO. In a previous era it would have been far more complicated than it is now - but it reminds me of the way that a diploma or a degree is now out of date in the information era (to share thoughts from my field/experience): we can now share information far more efficiently (discrete skills developed, itemized cost lists, etc.) and so maybe we should consider that we should.

I'd appreciate it if the items I purchased at the store had a QR code leading to a website that itemized what the product cost, allowing me to see where any markup occurred. And nowadays - thats pretty doable.

So, philosophically, I think I disagree with you: it SHOULD exist. And it is a shame that it doesn't.

 

[BillFleming]

One large issue about listing the cost of items....what cost do you provide? There is the cost of the item and then there is your cost. Your cost is usually lower due to purchasing multiples. You aren't buying one disc at $20, you might be buying 100 discs at $12 each. So which price do you report to the players? Your discounted price or the price the player would have paid if they had to buy the disc themselves?

 

[jeverett]

I'm supporting the Rocket Disc Golf sport club in running their annual fundraiser event. I had thought that there was some PDGA requirement regarding transparency - posting how much of the entry fees would go to what (payout, fundraising, player pack, etc.).

I'm not seeing that in any of the documents I'm looking over.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or am I imagining a requirement that was never there?

The only thing like that in the Competition Manual is the requirement (if there are more than two total rounds) to post the payouts:

Competition Manual 1.10 D: Events with more than two rounds must post payout (including all added cash) prior to the start of the last round.

Personally, I also think it's a good idea to notify players (somehow) what the 'course fee' (i.e. the per-player fee deducted from their entry fees) is going to be for the event. This fee is *supposed* to be used for "pass-through" expenses such as course rentals, required permits and restroom rentals, etc. and depending on the event and courses/properties involved, can be very significant.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The only thing like that in the Competition Manual is the requirement (if there are more than two total rounds) to post the payouts:

Competition Manual 1.10 D: Events with more than two rounds must post payout (including all added cash) prior to the start of the last round.

Personally, I also think it's a good idea to notify players (somehow) what the 'course fee' (i.e. the per-player fee deducted from their entry fees) is going to be for the event. This fee is *supposed* to be used for "pass-through" expenses such as course rentals, required permits and restroom rentals, etc. and depending on the event and courses/properties involved, can be very significant.

I like doing a breakdown of what dollars go to (if applicable)...
... payout
... player pack
... series fee
... PDGA
... course fee
... charity
... fundraising
... general costs of event

At the very least it provides a jumping off point for any discussion with a player who questions where their money is going. The last one I indicated - general costs - maybe could be broken down further but I've only run a couple of events of significant size where that'd be more than stuff like cardboard for signs, or string for OB, etc.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm with John. But if it's a fundraiser, it might be a good idea to let people know how much they're contributing to the charity.

Basically, what you need to show is that people got their entries back, in the forms of player packs, prizes, and the charity. Less the pass-throughs. Because that's what the rules for payouts are.

You don't need to show all your costs and donations to get to that point. If the player received a players pack, he doesn't need to know if you paid retail or wholesale or were given it free or made it by hand or stole it -- just that he received the value promised.

 

[biscoe]

I like doing a breakdown of what dollars go to (if applicable)...
... payout
... player pack
... series fee
... PDGA
... course fee
... charity
... fundraising
... general costs of event

At the very least it provides a jumping off point for any discussion with a player who questions where their money is going. The last one I indicated - general costs - maybe could be broken down further but I've only run a couple of events of significant size where that'd be more than stuff like cardboard for signs, or string for OB, etc.

When players question me as to where their entry fees are going my response is "if you feel you did not get your money's worth feel free to shop elsewhere" but it virtually never occurs. As noted by others above I do indicate on the registration pages when there are greens fees involved or if a portion of entry is going to something else (generally charity). It's none of their business what I am paying for player's pack or payout stuff as long as they get what they are supposed to receive in the tier requirements.

Please don't take this as an advocacy for running events to maximize profits because that is not what i do. In general my preference is to run events which meet the requirements while maintaining entry fees that are lower than the norm. There are plenty of TD's out there who seek to soak the players for every cent they can based on cost to retail differential- that is not me. Most of the time I wind up splitting the difference between wholesale and retail in terms of valuation of players packs, etc.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I'm with John. But if it's a fundraiser, it might be a good idea to let people know how much they're contributing to the charity.

Basically, what you need to show is that people got their entries back, in the forms of player packs, prizes, and the charity. Less the pass-throughs. Because that's what the rules for payouts are.

You don't need to show all your costs and donations to get to that point. If the player received a players pack, he doesn't need to know if you paid retail or wholesale or were given it free or made it by hand or stole it -- just that he received the value promised.

When players question me as to where their entry fees are going my response is "if you feel you did not get your money's worth feel free to shop elsewhere" but it virtually never occurs. As noted by others above I do indicate on the registration pages when there are greens fees involved or if a portion of entry is going to something else (generally charity). It's none of their business what I am paying for player's pack or payout stuff as long as they get what they are supposed to receive in the tier requirements.

Please don't take this as an advocacy for running events to maximize profits because that is not what i do. In general my preference is to run events which meet the requirements while maintaining entry fees that are lower than the norm. There are plenty of TD's out there who seek to soak the players for every cent they can based on cost to retail differential- that is not me. Most of the time I wind up splitting the difference between wholesale and retail in terms of valuation of players packs, etc.

I'm not saying you're trying to maximize profits, but I simply don't see the point in obfuscation for what I see as no reason. I believe that if there's not a relevant reason to be something other than as transparent as possible, then you should seek to be as transparent as possible. I think that the default should be toward maximizing transparency.

One large issue about listing the cost of items....what cost do you provide? There is the cost of the item and then there is your cost. Your cost is usually lower due to purchasing multiples. You aren't buying one disc at $20, you might be buying 100 discs at $12 each. So which price do you report to the players? Your discounted price or the price the player would have paid if they had to buy the disc themselves?

I would use MSRP, personally. I can see rationales for otherwise, and I do see a TD's right to decide exactly which number to use - but I would identify what number I am using.

 

[DavidSauls]

The requirements for payouts are at retail value, which would be MSRP or something close to it. That's what players have a right to expect.

If I'm a player and given a Champion Groove as a players pack, it's the same to me, whether the TD paid retail, wholesale, or nothing for it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not saying you're trying to maximize profits, but I simply don't see the point in obfuscation for what I see as no reason. I believe that if there's not a relevant reason to be something other than as transparent as possible, then you should seek to be as transparent as possible. I think that the default should be toward maximizing transparency.

I would use MSRP, personally. I can see rationales for otherwise, and I do see a TD's right to decide exactly which number to use - but I would identify what number I am using.

Make the case why transparency on the backend cost/expense side is an important principle for events, The goal in capitalism is not tipping off what competitive advantages you might have as long as you're doing your accounting properly to pay taxes (see Al Capone bio). I agree it would more interesting to see who gets it, where it goes and how much money flows and doesn't flow through the DGPT/PDGA econo$ystem, but we're left to divine several of those "black box" numbers using our own connections and sleuthing capabilities.

 

[roblee]

Seems like considerable transparency was lost with not posting Am payouts. Sure, it may be viewed at HQ during event. If I donate to an event that advertised $ X,000 added to Am purse I'd like to be able to publicly verify; at least get close. I can do that with Pro purse. I forget; why was it eliminated?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Make the case why transparency on the backend cost/expense side is an important principle for events, The goal in capitalism is not tipping off what competitive advantages you might have as long as you're doing your accounting properly to pay taxes (see Al Capone bio). I agree it would more interesting to see who gets it, where it goes and how much money flows and doesn't flow through the DGPT/PDGA econo$ystem, but we're left to divine several of those "black box" numbers using our own connections and sleuthing capabilities.

To be completely clear Chuck - ****. CAPITALISM.

Obfuscating in the ways you describe, to me, and like capitalism, is immoral. And I think it is unfortunate that our current society ever existed. So, in running an event, I'd rather not guide anything I do using principles of capitalism.

Transparency on the back end is important because it is a rational good for us to seek to provide the fullest possible accounting of how we do things to each other, especially where it is of minimal effort to do so. It should be that a case should be made for why we should obfuscate, not the other way around. We should seek to establish as much as we can, to maximize clarity and build opportunities for trust from the start.

 

[jenb]

To be completely clear Chuck - ****. CAPITALISM.

Obfuscating in the ways you describe, to me, and like capitalism, is immoral. And I think it is unfortunate that our current society ever existed. So, in running an event, I'd rather not guide anything I do using principles of capitalism.

Transparency on the back end is important because it is a rational good for us to seek to provide the fullest possible accounting of how we do things to each other, especially where it is of minimal effort to do so. It should be that a case should be made for why we should obfuscate, not the other way around. We should seek to establish as much as we can, to maximize clarity and build opportunities for trust from the start.

I think what you are wanting would be likely to divulge trade secrets, such as suppliers lists, vendor lists, etc. probably not so much with dg tournaments but consider things like automobiles and smartphones.

 

[Countchunkula]

I think the perceived need for financial transparency with DG events is tied to DG tournament culture. For years, we've been conditioned to expect a players pack worth XX% of the entry fee. Other than fees, the rest should go to payouts is a common line of thinking. The value of the event itself is left out of the cost calculation for many players.

Just because it's not a hard cost, doesn't mean it has no value.

Not saying you think that way, Chris, but a lot of people do and it seems like you are anticipating these type of questions.

Not to mention that for many, TDs and other tourney staff are expected to be volunteers.

 

[jenb]

I'm with John. But if it's a fundraiser, it might be a good idea to let people know how much they're contributing to the charity.

Basically, what you need to show is that people got their entries back, in the forms of player packs, prizes, and the charity. Less the pass-throughs. Because that's what the rules for payouts are.

You don't need to show all your costs and donations to get to that point. If the player received a players pack, he doesn't need to know if you paid retail or wholesale or were given it free or made it by hand or stole it -- just that he received the value promised.

Last I checked, charities have to deliver 5% of funds raised to the beneficiary. Some charities disclose details to advertise they deliver much more than 5%. For the rest, I tend to assume the worst.

 

[txmxer]

Setting aside some of the more detailed logic about transparency, TDS seem to catch a lot of sh-t as it stands. To provide the type of transparency being asked for would only serve as fuel to for some to elevate their whine to 11.

If it were required the headaches would double and TDs would give up trying to run events.