True Added Cash

[DavidSauls]

TDs fulfill their obligation to the "shareholders" by filing their TD reports, which include a financial report, with the PDGA.

Actually, a TD is not obligated to fill out that section of the TD Report (except for NTs & Majors).

 

[JC17393]

Actually, a TD is not obligated to fill out that section of the TD Report (except for NTs & Majors).

He is obligated to do so should the PDGA request it from him, which they would if there was a complaint. Says so right in the instructions on the Finance tab: "Instructions: Only Majors and National Tour events are required to complete this section. This sheet is provided to assist TDs with the financial management of their event. You will be asked to provide financial detail only if the PDGA receives complaints from players regarding the overall event payout (incl players packages, side games, amenities etc)."

I've been on the TD end of the PDGA receiving a complaint and requesting financial detail. A player happened to be in town on vacation so played a small C-tier I co-TDed. He won the Masters division. However, he was unhappy with the payout he received (but said nothing to us at the time) and lodged a complaint with the PDGA. The Tour Manager at the time contacted me for further explanation.

Turns out the complaining player found objectionable the concept of greens fees. He came into the land of pay-to-play courses from the wider world of "disc golf is free!" and apparently was caught off-guard (he also seemed to have forgotten PDGA and local series fees too). So when he did his back of the napkin figuring on how much he "should have" gotten paid based on entry fee and size of the field, he undershot the actual net entry fees by at least $60.

The Tour Manager, fortunately, understood those concepts just fine and told the player his complaint had no basis and that was that. But it was a perfect example of how the system can work, particularly when it is used properly.

 

[DavidSauls]

True, but that part of the financials is mandatory. Entry fees, deduction from entry fees, and payouts. Which is also the part that players have a legitimate interest in. Sponsorships are also part of the required information.

The more detailed financials, of fixed expenses and merchandise costs and the rest, are not. They're only necessary if a complaint arises, and I'm not sure what kind of player complaint gets to that level, anyway.

 

[JC17393]

True, but that part of the financials is mandatory. Entry fees, deduction from entry fees, and payouts. Which is also the part that players have a legitimate interest in. Sponsorships are also part of the required information.

My original point exactly...the big financial stuff is in the report when it's submitted.

Though the info in the report (on the Cover tab) isn't necessarily detailed, it's just a broad overview with the grand totals in terms of payout. Deductible fees, for example, are only expressed as a total amount taken from gross entries. The details of what they are (such as how much is the greens/course rental fee, local series fee, etc) would require further detailing either in the Finance tab or a separate inquiry.

Bottom line is that that info is certainly sufficient to show whether or not the event provided value that matched or exceeded the minimum requirements, which is the only thing a player should be concerned with.

 

[JohtoVillage]

One problem here is the use of the term "profit" which I doubt any TD has ever produced. Many have earned some "income" above out-of-pocket expenses by not counting the fair market value of the labor expended by several people to host the event. But earning actual profit after all calculated expenses including estimated labor cost, very unlikely.

This is a TRUISM at its best. If a TD is doing his job then he probably spend at least 25 hours on a B Tier, 200 hours on an A Tier, so and so on.

I have unfortunately decided to track my hours for the NT I am hosting and its not pretty. I am at about 350 hours now and the tournament is still months away. I expect that number to be over 1000 hours by the time the tournament is played.

I would have no problem with an A Tier or NT TD taking a fee but I am uncomfortable doing so.

As I said before, if more people take my attitude it will help everyone as a whole because tournaments will have better payouts, amenities, etc.

The amateur model wouldn't need to go to Trophy Only for Park Depts to find the current merch model satisfactory for covering labor costs, especially those who already are running a pay-for-play operation with a pro shop.

This is how I feel as well - Lemon Lake is a good example of what a pay to play course can become. Courses that have good upkeep, a pro shop on site and a concession stand on site. Their tournaments are not trophy only. I believe the Park District rents the usage of the building to two individuals who run that as their business and the park district keeps the money that comes in at the gate. Its clear that the park district puts money back into the courses, but obviously its also clear that having 4 courses on one property certainly helps.

 

[paulw]

One problem here is the use of the term "profit" which I doubt any TD has ever produced. Many have earned some "income" above out-of-pocket expenses by not counting the fair market value of the labor expended by several people to host the event. But earning actual profit after all calculated expenses including estimated labor cost, very unlikely. . . .

Well-said. Thanks. This part of the equation is invariably missed by participants and it's annoying. Of course these are the same people that can drive 5 hours to a 2 day tournament, pay $70 to enter a tournament, eat out for 6 meals, spend $20/ea for 2 nights sleeping on a sofa in a cheap motel finish in last cash, get a check for $32 and think they've made $32, so it kind of makes sense.

 

[biscoe]

As I said before, if more people take my attitude it will help everyone as a whole because tournaments will have better payouts, amenities, etc.

I disagree- while it is admirable of you to donate hundreds of hours of work to throw the biggest dg party you can what the practice does in the long term to most (you may be the exception) TD's is burn them out.

It also skews player expectations to feeling entitled to royal treatment everywhere they go. Perhaps that should be the case for NT events- I certainly don't want to come across as condemning you for doing it- it is simply not reasonable to expect everyone to do it.

Better payouts are beneficial to a small fraction of players.

 

[JohtoVillage]

I disagree- while it is admirable of you to donate hundreds of hours of work to throw the biggest dg party you can what the practice does in the long term to most (you may be the exception) TD's is burn them out.

It also skews player expectations to feeling entitled to royal treatment everywhere they go. Perhaps that should be the case for NT events- I certainly don't want to come across as condemning you for doing it- it is simply not reasonable to expect everyone to do it.

Better payouts are beneficial to a small fraction of players.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect this from a C Tier or B Tier but I think TD's of A Tiers and above should be putting in 150+ hours into their event. That will make it better for everyone involved if the TD's of these events pay it forward. They will be paid back by getting to play better events.

Its not all about payout, obviously. Its important to have good amenities, food, entertainment, player's packs, etc.

 

[krupicka]

I put a many hours into each event I run, but there is not that kind of money in running events that would pay for 150+ hours of my time.

 

[olkok]

The PDGA does not stipulate where the added cash goes. The TD can add it to any division they see fit including the AMs.

 

[JC17393]

The PDGA does not stipulate where the added cash goes. The TD can add it to any division they see fit including the AMs.

Not quite true. Added cash in terms of the minimum that must be added to an event is defined by the PDGA as money added to the pro purse only. It can be divided amongst any pro division the TD sees fit but it does not include anything added to the Ams (see Table 1 and the line "Minimum Added $ to Pro Purse").

I suppose if an A-tier advertised $5,000 added cash and only added $2000 to the pro purse while the rest went into the Ams, they'd be compliant with the PDGA guidelines but would probably confuse and annoy the pros coming for a purse with $5000 added.

Adding to the Am purse should be expressed as added value (as in, 150% payout value for ams or something like that), not added cash for the purposes of advertising. After all, Am players aren't walking away from the tournament with cash, they're walking away with merchandise.

 

[biscoe]

The PDGA does not do a good job of differentiating between "sponsorship" and "added cash". For the sake of the conversation we are having here I would consider anything (money or otherwise) going to anything other than pro division payout as "sponsorship" and monies going to pro division payout as "added cash". It is up to the TD to decide how much of the sponsorship they raise becomes added cash.

IMO advertising "sponsorship" as "added cash" is a bit disingenuous and is what prompted the OP to begin this thread.

 

[JohtoVillage]

IMO advertising "sponsorship" as "added cash" is a bit disingenuous and is what prompted the OP to begin this thread.

Yes, that's 100% correct. I think a better definition of these two terms would help a lot.

 

[JC17393]

Yes, that's 100% correct. I think a better definition of these two terms would help a lot.

I think as long as people understand that they are in fact two different words with two different meanings, further defining them isn't really necessary. It's not really that they are poorly defined so much as some folks are apparently using them interchangeably.

 

[mndiscgolfer]

Maybe use Event Value as the term used and save Added Cash for the Cash added towards the payouts