Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / AHPA - Setting the record straight on Sanctioning (
View Older Thread |
View Newer Thread)
First |
1 |
Last
| brain
- 26 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 578
|
USAA members and players:
There has been a lot of discussion around the July World Championships and USAA sanctioning for the event. Up until now, I have deferred the public speaking for AHPA to my business partner, Chris Lee. But I think it's time that I chimed in to set the record straight. There are several facts that are not being presented correctly.
1) AHPA has asked for USAA Sanctioning; however, AHPA does not need USAA sanctioning. We are a separate business operating in the same market sector. We have secured a relationship with a professional sporting organization to host a world championship Airhockey event. This will be the most credible venue the sport has ever had. We also have a relationship with Valley-Dynamo as a supplier. AHPA has secured this opportunity and we are offering the USAA an opportunity to append its name to the event as a courtesy and show of respect. It was because of relationships with several key figures in the sport who asked us respectfully to apply that we agreed to do so.
2) The USAA leadership and some board members have expressed that AHPA is required to allow the USAA to select a tournament committee and head referees for our event as a requirement of sanctioning. We do not recognize this requirement. Take a look at your Constitution and Bylaws. The only "requirement" for sanctioning is stated in Section X.12 of the USAA Constitution and it states the following:
"Sanctioning of USAA National/International Tournaments requires a majority vote of the USAA Board."
No requirements for Sanctioning other than 50.1% approval from its board members exist anywhere in the organization's official documentation. In the past tournament promoters have always been USAA members and thus this has been a courtesy. It is not a written requirement. As a professional governance organization that charges dues to its members and taxes (which is how I view a sanctioning "fee") to its promoters, the USAA has an obligation to follow its written rules without deviation. It is not appropriate, legal, or ethical to insist that a promoter's request for sanctioning be rejected because it will not concede to unofficial provisions. Therefore, AHPA does not recognize appointment of a Tournament Committee and Officials as a requirement. That said, as a courtesy to the USAA and sign of cooperation to the players, we have offered to allow Phil Arnold to serve on the committee with Chris and myself as well as co-head referee with me.
|
|
|
|
| brain
- 26 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 578
|
3) Sanction Fee #1 - Technically the USAA Constitution says that promoters will be charged $300. Two problems. First I have heard $250 and I have heard $300. Even USAA board members have given different figures. If it was changed, why has your official documentation, available on the Internet, not been updated? If you are charging a fee, the amount needs to be consistent and correct in your official documentation. Secondly, the section VII E states as follows:
Tournament promoters will be charged an additional amount for USAA sanctioning for national-level events. This additional fee is a flat fee of $300 total for the event series, which will go to the USAA Treasury."
I realize it's a technicality, but it does not say that the promoter is "required" to pay this to attain sanctioning. Chris and I both acknowledge that this the intent is for this to be a stipulation of sanctioning. (I know because I was the president when this provision was established.) Nevertheless, imagine if AHPA was comprised of some third party businessmen, unknown to the sport. If they even had the inclination to seek USAA sanctioning, I can guarantee that they would scrutinize the rules, especially when it comes to financials.
4) Sanctioning Fee #2 - USAA Senior Member Lazaro Garcia offered to pay the fee on our behalf. USAA leadership has said that this is not allowed. Please direct me to the published provision stating that the sanctioning fee cannot be paid by a donor. If Lazaro handed me the money and then I handed it to the USAA treasurer, then it counts, but if Lazaro hands it directly to the treasurer it doesn't? Really? This reasoning is "making it up as you go" logic and not conducive to professional governance standards. What I am saying is that this is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
| brain
- 26 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 578
|
5) Sanctioning Fee #3 - Until 2005, the USAA had no mechanism to collect and manage finances. As president, I influenced the organization to adopt a policy of collecting dues and sanctioning fees. But the assumption I made was the USAA could execute basic elementary responsible money management practices (like tracking transactions in an Excel spreadsheet). In fact, the mechanisms were not in place in 2006 and 2007, and the board voted to suspend collecting money from promoters in those years. Furthermore, in late 2012, after Phil Arnold was elected president, I sought to determine the financial position of the organization. I performed some basic calculations regarding the number of USAA members with annual dues and the USAA national tournaments held, number of attendees and promotional fees for the national tournaments that had been held (original sanctioning fee was based on # of players). My calculations did not match the current financial status of the organization - by 4 figures. (I have been searching for that email in my history and hope to find so I can provide the details to those who seek it.) I invoked provision VII-F of the constitution which stated "The USAA Treasurer will be required to provide a detailed financial report at each USAA board meeting showing all funds collected and activity with those funds." The current leadership opted not to comply, nor did it choose to investigate the variance. The matter was dismissed, and my Constitutional right was violated.
All that said, it is our position that the USAA has not been diligent in its financial management. It cannot show that it has responsibly collected dues and sanctioning fees for all events since this provision was voted in. As a professional business, we are not comfortable nor do we feel obligated to give any amount of money to an organization that cannot manage simple financial transactions and chooses which of its Constitutional provisions it will enforce and which ones it will not. We realize that comes across as harsh, but it's at the core of our values and that will never change.
As a public organization, if the USAA can address my initial findings by producing detailed financial records showing that it has collected dues and sanctioning fees diligently and that the amount in its account equals the calculated collection amount or equals that amount less any approved financial spending as documented in its meeting minutes, then I will personally write a check to cover the sanctioning fees. FYI, the USAA President, according to the Constitution (section III.B.2) has a $50 limit on petty cash disbursements. All other spend must be approved by the board. If money was used for other purposes without a vote of the board above that amount, it was done in violation of the Constitution. I'm not suggesting that has happened, but there is a valid reason to question it, and, in my opinion, the leadership has a duty to investigate and rectify it.
|
|
|
|
| brain
- 26 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 578
|
6) Sanctioning Fee #4 - As a tournament organizer, I want to make every dollar count. And given the small state of our sport, it is necessary. So it comes down to value. As I said, the primary value of the USAA sanctioning to AHPA is for the comfort of valued customers who would prefer that the tournament have it. Otherwise, the business value of that fee is what? The USAA brand recognition extends to maybe 100-200 people. That's not a market. It's not even a small pond. It's barely a puddle. I mean no disrespect. But what I say is a fact. When you zoom the lens outside of this very small group to a 10,000 foot view, in the big picture, we barely exist. But I digress. The point is that the value of the $250-300 is better spent on advertising, prize funds, equipment purchase, etc. AHPA asserts that the money better serves the sport and the quality of the event by being invested into the event, instead of lining the pockets of an organization that has, (again no disrespect meant), allegedly not been diligent in its financial management, faithful in its adherence to its own power restrictions, and fair in its application of fees to its promoters.
7) Media - The USAA has a tournament procedure, as written, giving them control over media. Section X-9 of the USAA Air Hockey rules states:
The USAA reserves the right to photograph or videotape any tournament play desired by the camera crew and to use it as players request. Players may refuse to permit flashbulbs or extreme lighting to be used during their match by camera people.
Media is a separate category in of itself and not a tournament procedure. Furthermore, media is always always always within the promotional boundaries. The ability to record matches, provide commentating, and televise or announce, sell, and use for marketing is a business function, not a governance function. Any TV or other promotional business that ever comes along would NEVER agree to this because a significant portion of the financial opportunity is in the media. Unless the USAA intends to be an events organization in addition to governance, it needs to remove this provision and then negotiate on a one on one basis with the promotional entities to get some type of media provisions if it really wants that.
If the concern being raised regarding this provision is that players individually want to be able to record some matches for their own personal use, then AHPA has no issue with that so long as players who bring cameras and want to record check with the tournament committee and ensure that the placement of their cameras are consistent with the floor plan. In fact, we will design the floor plan to include space for individual cameras where possible.
|
|
|
|
| brain
- 26 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 578
|
8) Value - To negotiate means you have to bring something of value to the table. The USAA needs to work on expanding the value it can offer to promoters. To approach a legitimate promotional business and say give us $300 (or any amount) and that will get our seal of approval and mean that 15-20 more players will attend will get you a "yeah we'll let you know" response. When your sanctioning means that ESPN will televise it and 1000 other players will show up, then you would have leverage to negotiate and get what you want. We recognize that some players will choose not to attend if the USAA does not sanction this event. Our position is that it is your choice. You will be missed, but the event will go on and will be superb. If you choose not to add this experience to your list of life experiences, then it is you who loses, not us. We want you all to attend and that is why we have asked the USAA to sanction the tournament. However, we are not going to be foolish in what we offer versus the value we get in return. That's not good business, and we seek to be good businessmen and conduct our affairs on sound business principles.
9) We have indicated that if the USAA chooses not to sanction the July event and instead to run its own event, AHPA would sanction that the event if it is not held within 3 months of our event. Having 2 world championship events is great for the sport. The reasoning for that constraint is that many players cannot afford to attend multiple events (travel and vacation) in such close proximity. Given my 19 years of experience in organizing and running tournaments, it's my judgment that 3 months is the right window to minimize loss of double participation opportunity. If the USAA were to hold an event within this window, we would view this as a competitive strategy, especially since it had not announced or shown any intent to hold an event until AHPA formally announced itself and our event. That's perfectly fine if that is the decision. We are attempting to create a collaborative relationship, but if the USAA feels a relationship of direct competition if preferable, then so be it.
|
|
|
|
| brain
- 26 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 578
|
That's the information we wanted to share. The ball is in the court of the USAA board. I have known many of you for many years, and we have established a mutual respect. Chris and I recognize that this new arrangement is awkward. On the table we are all comfortable competing with our friends. To do it in this arena is unusual. It is what it is. Chris and I believe that we are taking the sport in the right direction. If anything, look at how productive the USAA has suddenly become. All I ask from each of you is to engage your deepest reasoning skills, consider all of the information, rely on facts and not fiction, and make the decision that your mind calculates as the correct decision for the sport. The USAA Board members are free to contact Chris and I at any time either one on one or in a group setting if they feel it is appropriate or desired. Whether it is to get behind this or not is in your hands. We are family. And family sticks together, even if it doesn't agree.
I will be clear on one thing. We're not going to engage in a discussion or respond to any ugly accusations. I trust this community to self-manage any nonsensical responses. Chris and I both have very promising careers, an MBA to complete (for me - Chris is done), a wonderful wife and two sons, and lot of AHPA work product development efforts to invest my time and energy into. Meanwhile AHPA has kicked off our forums and blogs as a mechanism to communicate with the Air Hockey community and are moving forward with hosting the greatest tournament in the history of Air Hockey. We do have a code of conduct on our forums, so those of you that want to come on and have productive, respectful discussions, you are invited. www.theahpa.com.
Brian Accrocco
Co-Founder, Air Hockey Players Association
|
First |
1 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / AHPA - Setting the record straight on Sanctioning
|
|
