Increased Game Fees for 2007

[Kyle Berggren]

The officials contract negotiation was finalized in January I believe... I could be wrong, but that's how late it was finished. It's a national contract, not something the PNCLL had any specific say over.... There's not much we can do other than use a different group of officials, and we're already limited as it is.

Juergy, the costs are the costs we have to pay them somehow. We could charge every team $500+ for each game they play, or differ the costs to the teams that are using the higher costs.

The cost have nothing to do with teams wanting to travel... It has to do with who pays officials to travel to outlying areas. No one wants to travel, we've established that time & time again. Apparently officials don't want to travel also, hence the increased costs. These proposals were not designed to hurt Whitman, they're designed to pay the bills.

As far as the proposals being selfish, I'm not going to touch that, you're assuming a lot. We can tell you're upset, but we couldn't solve the problem ourselves, & decided to put it to a vote. I'd ask that you don't think about the cost to your team, think about the league as a whole and ask what's fair? who should pay the costs? Now with that said, the solution we come up with here will be an interim solution until we can deal with it at the AGM in September.

To answer your question, you do deserve home games. Now those home games have a much higher cost & we have to find a way to pay for them.

[kladis]

Wow- this is serious stuff!

Just a few thoughts on this coming from the east side:

The biggest problem with these increases is their timing. Had they been anticipated, we could have planned for this, but as it is, we just need to get through this season. After that, teams will be aware of these costs and be responsible to plan for them. However, there is absolutely no way that the teams on the east side could manage the increases this year.

However, in the long run, I think the increases are not only unavoidable, but would be fair as well, its just about getting through this year.

The example game of Gonzaga Hosting Montana, would cost Gonzaga a minimum of $900. Paying an additional $900 for one game is just not reasonable as an expense that wasn't expected for a team.

Here is my opinion. For this season, things need to be different, and next year, the proposed options should take effect. Basically, this year, some objective formula should be used to proportionally distribute the "debt". All games that are not conference games should NOT have 3 officials. Just with that, the previous example game costs are cut in 1/3rd.

There are ways we can get through this, the main thing is that the PNCLL all gets on the same page and works together to get through this year. The most important thing for the league is each and every team surviving.

"Things work out the best for those who make the best of the way things work out."

Lastly, I have talked to a number of people interested in officiating collegiate games from the Spokane area. I've always given them the leagues contact info, and a few times given the league theirs. I think there are still no refs from the eastern side, and I'd like to know why we can't ge these guys as part of the officiating crew.

[Kyle Berggren]

Rick great post...

I love your idea for 2 officials on non-conference games, but as per the contract, we can't do that..... We have to have 3 officials on games. I hope that is still being worked through by Jason, but last I heard, it wasn't an option.

We can't force ref's to carpool, however, Keith has greatly encouraged it. I love the fact that you have officials, we've actually added a ton since this past season. If HS lax in Spokane keeps growing, that will be a great hub for officials to travel from on the East, lowering game costs.

So with this said, seems like if it has to be a proposed option, it would have to be option 1?

[PNWLaxer]

With the officials signing and publishing their new deal in December, it was not great timing for any league. But lets all remember that has nothing to do with the PNCLL. Where the PNCLL comes into play is how they plan on dealing with this new deal.

For those that think the West is out to get the East I honestly believe you are wrong. Yes the executive is almost entirely or is entirely based out of the West but that is not the fault of those elected to the board. Each year elections take place and each team gets 1 vote to place a person in that position. No one wants to see programs quit. That is the worst thing that could happen to this league.

There is no easy or simple solution to this problem, as no one thought that fees would increase as much as they did. The problem is that the referee's are based in the metro areas and that the PNCLL like other conferences has numerous teams in far reaching places.

I am sure consultation was done between conferences and ideas have been tossed between people inside and outside this league. No one is going to be 100% in favor of any solution that is decided on because one or more teams is going to be placed at a financial disadvantage. Unfortunately I think this is going to come down to pleasing the most teams possible in a short amount of time (1 playing season.)

Before anyone goes on a rant about how unfair this is to their specific team, this impacts every team some a lot more than others but it still . Instead of just getting upset offer a solution that can help out the board and the rest of the teams. Be apart of the solution, help out where you can.

I would suggest that each team pay an equal share of their game fees with the league helping out where the total is over a certain amount. Whatever the cost is for a particular game get the teams to split 50/50. If the total game fees are over say $1000 the league covers a small portion, not more than 20%. The above example includes numbers I made up so please take that into account when reading it. I understand the league has put some money aside (I dont' know how much so this may not be feasible either). We need to make it through this year some how some way. Please throw out ideas and maybe something can be decided on.

[kladis]

What is the reasoning there be only 2 refs?

I mean if we can't even use options such as cutting down the # of refs, and yes the "quality" may suffer a little with that, but I mean how much more obvious of a reasonable solution is there? If "we" (meaning the mdia or whoever decided to write up this contract) are already closing off common sense options because of some contract someone felt was necessary, then club lacrosse is heading straight in the wrong direction.

Also, as far as the voting, I don't think I can vote for any. Reason being because for this season, every option would basically end up with Gonzaga not being able to pay league dues and thus not be in the league anymore. I'm not going to vote for that. There is no way that Gonzaga could pay the additional costs that we'd have to with the 8 home games we've got scheduled. I mean that's damn near something like 4 thousand more dollars if my estimates are correct. I'm sure there are a number of other teams in the same boat, and therefore, these options are simply not reasonable.

The solution is obvious to me. For the 2007 season, the PNCLL teams need to participate is some sort of "debt sharing" program. Basically, the difference in costs and revenues needs to be shared amongst all the teams using some obective formula which takes into effect # of games, home games, OOC games, etc. Then, in 2008, a new system is used dividing up dues per team based on their indiividual schedules.

Additionally, since we "dont have enough refs" and at the same time need to have more refs than necessary at a game, then we need to really go back to that fork in the road, and re-evaluate that.

I know that nobody in the league is "out to get" anyone else and I'm confident that a reasonable solution will be reached.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

At the Annual Meeting we will also have to discuss the increased cost of playoff officials, which will likely necessitate a raise in PNCLL dues to cover.

It is my hope that this year's tournament will be run efficiently and effectively and most importanly - profitably. . .so that the increased cost of the officials can be offset by revenues generated by the event.

As tournament co-chair, it is a challenge I enthusiastically embrace as Kyle Berggren and I work to put on a first class event that is financially strong for our league.

[Kyle Berggren]

Isn't that what number 1 is asking? $350/game/team...

I'm still struggling with whether or not it's right to force teams to pay more to subsidize others in the conference. We've had many debates on it as a board. The equation your looking for is interesting, & I can't picture it. I thought the $350/game/team is the end result of that? For instance, if L&C plays Linfield, the actual game cost is roughly $400, we'll charge $700. That's an extra $300 to subsidize the games played elsewhere, although we won't know how to allocate that until the end of the season. Officials getting injured/sick effects the cost of a game, & while I sympathize with the fact that ALL outlying teams will be in a financial struggle, knowing that nearly 43% of the cost of some of my games will be to subsidize others is difficult to stomach. I know it's necessary, & we've got a few ideas we may need to revisit, but everyone is going to have to come up with more money for this season. All 19 teams.

We don't want anyone out of the conference, but we've got to pay the bills. I believe option 2 is by far the fairest solution, however it's very difficult to implement with games starting so soon. It's just impractical. The answer may be in the implication of the system, we've got to work it out.

If you've got an equation in mind, please throw it out there, even with made up numbers so we can take a look & talk it through.

[Band]

I gotta go with Kladis on this one. His idea is the best compromise of equitability and functionality.

[Juergy]

Kladis, I think your last post was dead on. Why not have the teams share the costs equally, which is what was done in the past? Why was that not an option? Four grand extra, as Kladis said, is totally unreasonable to ask for at this point. I apologize for my heated post. It was accusatory, and I should have expressed myself in a less confrontational way. Whether or not someone is out to get the eastern teams, that probably wasn't the explicit intent. But I will say that the teams from the west need to realize how much a burden this is on us. I think we really need to approach this as a league issue, and the way the options were presented, it is hard to not vote for what is best for your school. Again, let's continue to pay 50/50 so teams disadvantaged by geography aren't overwhelmed in this. What question really needs to be asked is why are why subsidizing out of conference games? I think that might be a question worth asking; those games are optional. Hopefully high school lax will come to Missoula, Spokane, and maybe even Walla Walla, so this won't be a problem in the future.

[Juergy]

And to respond to your post Kyle, I know it is hard to know you are "overpaying" for your games in Tacoma, but again, you have to ask how you are approaching this issue. Is it as a member of UPS or a member of the PNCLL? There is going to be self-interest in every decision, but you also have to always look out for the league as a whole. It sucks that we have such a large geographical area, but instead of loading the game costs on a few outlying teams a smaller hike for all teams seems fairest.

Another thing to keep in mind. The only reason we are even discussing throwing out the 50/50 cost split is because things are increasing and some teams don't want to pay just a little more. Why wasn't this changed before if it was so "unfair"? Fact of the matter is it only became "unfair" when people decided that a little increase was too much. Gas is expensive. That sucks. But its life.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

Coming up with extra on top of the fundraising we are already doing/have done may not be entirely doable. Are we going to get drummed out of the league because we can't come up with an surprise $X000? Questions like that need to be addressed. This may not be the league's fault but it isn't our fault either. We joined expecting to get the same treatment as anyone else.

Mike, no one who wants to be a part of this league is going to be kicked out of this league. I KNOW this is going to be a difficult burden on every team in the league. . .and as was suggested earlier, I wish I had an "easy" button. . .

There is no easy solution, but fees must increase. This will affect everyone in 2007 - and we know this is very "last minute." But trust me, I have spent countless hours with the board looking for "easy" solutions. . .and there aren't any. If a team can't pay their bills, we will work with that team to help them come up with ways to raise money. One of the things we've done to lessen the immediate blow of the fee hike is to not collect the game fees up front as we have in the past. You will be invoiced monthly. We can provide you with an estimate of your fees so you'll know how much to budget once the league votes and choses option 1 or 2.

[TheBearcatHimself]

I wish I had an easy button??

Priceless

OK, well speaking for one of the "little guys" who would have to "subsidize Idaho and Montana and Gonzaga's games," I can say I wholeheartedly stand behind the $350 per team/per game. Why not just cowboy up and pay half and half? Yeah money is tight, money is ALWAYS tight. But making Montana pay through the f*ing nose just to have a homefield game is ludicrous.

Like what one of the Idaho guys said, the whole point of playing a collegiate sport is to get home games. You gotta get your ladies out to see ya play right? I doubt many of the Missoula honeys are gonna be traveling to Ellensburg to see Montana play WWU (I don't know maybe they have really good groupies that go with them all the time). My point is this, in the old system weren't surplus game fees used just like they would in the new $350 system (gosh I hope that's right or else my whole argument is useless)? I really can't in good conscience make Idaho or Montana pay 3, 4 times as much as I do just because by luck I am near 5 schools I will play. I also can't be mean to them just cause all the refs live by me. If we are going to grow as a league we need to be mature and share the burden. I hope the $350 makes sense and works best for everyone (I agree with Sir Wishengrand that in the long run if officials choose beautiful Moscow as their home the second option may be best in the end)

OK, I side with the teams from the East and I am from the West, harmony can be achieved. I love you all.

[Kyle Berggren]

And to respond to your post Kyle, I know it is hard to know you are "overpaying" for your games in Tacoma, but again, you have to ask how you are approaching this issue. Is it as a member of UPS or a member of the PNCLL? There is going to be self-interest in every decision, but you also have to always look out for the league as a whole. It sucks that we have such a large geographical area, but instead of loading the game costs on a few outlying teams a smaller hike for all teams seems fairest.

Another thing to keep in mind. The only reason we are even discussing throwing out the 50/50 cost split is because things are increasing and some teams don't want to pay just a little more. Why wasn't this changed before if it was so "unfair"? Fact of the matter is it only became "unfair" when people decided that a little increase was too much. Gas is expensive. That sucks. But its life.

FYI, I've been the first to take a bullet for the league when necessary. I have in the past, & I don't vote for what's simply in UPS's best interest. I take offense to you inferring that I do.

What you're asking UPS Students to do is pay a minimum of 43% more per game than the actual cost... while you pay less than the cost of your game. Now I'm not 100% against it this season, but I am against it in the long run. It doesn't make sense for you not to carry the costs you generate. The circumstances surrounding this one are difficult & last minute. To keep the conference together & teams in the conference, it sounds like we must share the costs.

As far as not changing this before, it was a $5-$10 cost that was deemed in consequential to most... Now we're talking about increasing dues from $230 to $350 to subsidize, plus splitting extra fees. It simply doesn't make sense. The costs are different at Idaho, the fees should reflect that.

I personally like the idea of charging every team an amount ($350-400), and billing each team the actual amount at the end of the year, due at the AGM or with the Dec 1st bill. So if PLU paid $4k, but only owed $3200 in actual cost, they'd be credited back $800 on their bill. The overcharged amount subsidizes the costs for teams that are billed more, & won't pay until the following season. It means that incoming freshman would pay for last seasons games, which is a HUGE drawback, but it solves cash flow & puts the costs associated with games on the home team. It's so late in terms of fundraising that it's not really feasible.

[Kyle Berggren]

FYI, if we split it 50/50... It's not unreasonable to assume some games will cost $2300.... $350 does not cover it...

[Ryan Hanavan]

I agree Rick, it's hard to vote now knowing that both options pretty much hit us with a shovel. I also think the 2 and 3 ref discussion is another item that should be opened and re-evaluated. No one wants to lose quality but why not follow the typical University model - make cuts.

I really don't like the idea of playing at neutral sites. This has been heaviest on my mind all day. I read what Kevin wrote about Montana in the other thread and think he summed it up nicely. Home games are how we sell/justify our program. If we want to build lacrosse interest in the community we need more home games and less neutral site games. We can only hope our high schools will pick up the ball in the next couple of years and I will continue driving that point with my own local efforts.

I'm also confident that everyone in this league wants the same thing, more or less. Continued growth and development will always have speed bumps. I'm sure we will all figure out how to get over this one.