FIRST Competition Entry Fee Increases for 2005

[Pierson]

Originally Posted by Hinkel Y.

There's one question, should there be a cap of how much money one team can recieve from their sponsors? And if sponsors are willing to give more money, should the money over the cap be given to FIRST and be evenly spread across to regionals and/or other FIRST expenses?

Wouldn’t it be rather hard to enforce this? Do you have a variable “capping” system based on the number of team members and mentors that each team has? How do you prove the real number of members and mentors? Besides sounding like a logistical nightmare to enforce, this sounds like an extreme version of the $3,500 cap, but it also sounds way too much like Communism, “Look… you guys have been too successful, we are taking your money away and are going to give it to some team that hasn’t worked as hard.”

Communism or welfare system. I don’t really know which this is.

So, I would say, no caps. But, what if a team was really successful? Then that team would be able to (if they wanted to) give out grants to other teams. And maybe the FIRST finance division would be happy to help the good-natured team. However, if I were that team, I would invest the money so that if they don’t raise enough money the next year, they don’t have a major financial problem.

[Hinkel Y.]

Originally Posted by Peciv

Wouldn’t it be rather hard to enforce this? Do you have a variable “capping” system based on the number of team members and mentors that each team has? How do you prove the real number of members and mentors? Besides sounding like a logistical nightmare to enforce, this sounds like an extreme version of the $3,500 cap, but it also sounds way too much like Communism, “Look… you guys have been too successful, we are taking your money away and are going to give it to some team that hasn’t worked as hard.”

With this, some teams may be unsuccessful at raising money. We have asked a company who shall remain nameless said they have sponsored a
team before, but they were not a good team (or something like that). And plus, the team might have relied on one main sponsor for all of their financial assets, then say one year, the company goes bankrupt and needs to pull the plug on their sponsorship. I'm not saying that the lower team should get all the money, but should be supplied with some just to stay alive.

Originally Posted by Peciv

Communism or welfare system. I don’t really know which this is.

So, I would say, no caps. But, what if a team was really successful? Then that team would be able to (if they wanted to) give out grants to other teams. And maybe the FIRST finance division would be happy to help the good-natured team. However, if I were that team, I would invest the money so that if they don’t raise enough money the next year, they don’t have a major financial problem.

By this, I meam a limit of say $100 000 for a season, and say you raise $200 000 and you could only "donate" $50 000 to FIRST. But we'll have to go with the team's gracious professionalism with this. But you do raise a good point about future planning...

[Pat Roche]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Hmm.. maybe a road trip to NH to get their unused returnables is in order...
I think I may already be taking a side trip up to NH during Battlecry, maybe I'll rent a U-Haul and rummage everybody's recycle bins up there.

There is no $0.05 deposit in NH, so getting these unused cans and bottles from residents will be rather simple..

Unless you got family in Connecticut

-Pat

[dez250]

to get this kinda rolling again, did anyone duscuss this at any of the team forums and get a good conversation rolling about the recent price increases, i would really lie to hear what other areas of the nation thinks about this? I mean are teams in one area having an easier time raising money so this isnt as bad of a problem as it may be in some financially striken areas, maybe like some parts of NYC?