I completely understand that dilemma, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to enter more runs than they can afford to.
We will still be the cheapest venue that I know of in regards to recording fees, or at the very least we’ll be a tie.
It’s just one of those issues where in order for things to improve you need the capital to make that happen. And I just don’t see 6 people working for nadac for free, and I wouldn’t ask them to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As many others have said, I have a limited amount of money to put into trials. I trial 4 dogs, and I allow myself X amount of money per trial. If I normally spend $360.00 and it is for 36 runs. I am now only going to enter 32 runs, for a total of $352.00. So the club, the judge and NADAC actually loses $8.00 on me per weekend. The trials around us are quite small. So that could really be a factor. Especially when there are several people who do this. The club still has to pay for the venue, which I am sure increases, and the judges, so they end up losing a lot more. I get that NADAC is the cheapest around per run, but we also have the most number of runs per day so it is actually the most expensive to run on a trial basis.
Not to argue any of your points about limited funds and NADAC having the most possible runs per day. But the judge and NADAC will not be losing $8 per day. Prior to the change, if you did 36 runs, the Judge got $36 and NADAC got $36. If you do 32 runs under the new pricing schedule, the Judge will get $48 and NADAC will get $48. Assuming the club raises their price to $11 per run (rather than the $10 you have been paying), it is the club that will collect $8 less.
I have been reading this thread, but, truthfully, not paying that much attention to the details. I had the vague thought that, yes, I understand that everyone’s expenses have gone up, I agree that NADAC deserves to have a profit or at least pay for enough employees to do the work involved, the clubs need to At the VERY least break even and should turn some profit for long range equipment expenses, etc, and totally understand that no one that I know has unlimited funds. All valid points.
But just reading Marcie’s post, if those numbers are accurate, was an eye opener. So if 36 runs/$10 a run brings in $360 to the club, and they paid $36 to the judge and $36 to NADAC that left them with $288 for the rest of their expenses and, hopefully, some profit. In the new scenario of 32runs/$11 a run, the club takes in $352, pays the judge $48 and NADAC $48 leaving them with $256 or the rest of their expenses...a loss NOT of $8 but of $32. The club is receiving $8 less but it’s expenses have gone up $24, for a net loss of $32.
I now realize what a dilemma this poses for clubs!! I don’t know what the easy, or even hard, answer is ...
Vicki