FIRST has $8 Million?!? What did I miss?

FIRST General Forum
#75

Answer to your question - Amanda said I was not alone and was not the only one to be upset about what I posted.

I know many don’t want to believe Lego and Pitsco are driving the FIRST program decisions, and I know many will want to remain in denial about it. Because I still respect some of the management at FIRST, while I do not agree with how they are running FIRST right now, I do not think they would lie to you or any team directly. I will guarantee you this - FIRST will not deny what is being discussed. They have acknowledged it to many people when pressed, even though we could tell they were not proud of what they were telling us. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I thought many more were aware of it than I guess are.

Also, Lego is not FIRSTs number one partner. They are the FLL partner, but the growth of FRC and FIRST in general are due much more to the support of NASA, GM, and others. However, you may now be right, it does look like Lego and Pitsco are gaining access to 3 of the 4 FIRST programs now - programs to us, profit making markets to Lego.

You can tell how I feel about the Lego/Pitsco/FIRST arrangements, so it’s clear I should not be helping run FLL or FTC events anymore. I’ll still work with local teams, but I will not help raise funds to build Lego and FIRSTs revenue stream. I did and do this to help schools and students. I’ve been a strong supporter and defender of FIRST for a number of years, so stepping away is not easy for me.

#76

You can repeat that all you want, but you haven’t explained what is so sinister about FIRST working with parts manufacturers, and you have entirely failed to document this ulterior motives of this alleged conspiracy. Do you expect FIRST to go into the manufacturing business themselves? Should they only work with companies that AREN’T trying to sell into the youth robotics market? Are you sure that the break with IFI was FIRST’s idea, and not IFI being intransigent in negotiations (I have no idea, and I’m betting you don’t either)? I hear emotions, but I don’t see facts.

You would have more credibility if you weren’t posting from what amounts to an anonymous account, by the way.

#77

A) Credit to FIRST head office… they do give us a heads up on changes and strive to practice GP in their dealings with the FIRST community. Sometimes they make decisions for reasons that are debatable, or at least not immediately obvious, to teams. Sometimes they need to keep certain information quiet as part of a contract or communications plan. Even when I don’t like the decision, however, or want the information NOW, I am confident that they are making the decision for good reasons. I can trust someone even if I don’t agree with them all the time. (And thankfully my wife can do the same!)

B) Downside to this agreement (and I have no problem believing it exists… I had wondered why FTC entry fees were so high when the cost of running the program appears so low)… I had three teams building three VEX robots at school, but could only justify one FTC entry fee. A neighbouring school built ten robots, but had to whittle it down to four because they couldn’t afford a fifth entry fee. In both cases we could build up the equipment over time as a slow-depreciating capital expense, but the annual entry fees are an on-going operating expense. A lower entry fee (or reduced entry fees for multiple teams from one school or district) would have seen more kids and more teams competing and aided the growth of FTC and FIRST. Perhaps if extra money was generated by FTC this year it will be returned to teams next year in the way of subsidized equipment sales. I’ve heard of worse plans…

Jason

P.S. I do find the posts describing the existence of a pricing agreement between FIRST and Lego credible, even though I do not have any independent or official confirmation. I do not, however, have enough information to form an opinion on whether or not such an agreement was wise, as I can only see the “costs” of the agreement (FTC fees being, perhaps, higher than needed) and not any benefits that the agreement brought, or was intended to bring, to the FIRST community.

#78

I’ve been googling other programs the past couple weeks, and I dont think your assumption is correct Rick. There are other robotics programs that seem to be very popular if you look at the forums, blogs and other info about them. BEST is free, Botball is around $2k, FLL and Vex are both $500-$1000. FRC is substantially more expensive than those programs. My question has been answered in this thread, and it seems clear FRC does not need to cost as much as it does. It does seem that FTC or Vex are still quality programs which require much less money and time.

The Lego FTC price thing is a different issue which sounds very bad to me. In these times of corporate greed, unethical deals and dirty politics on all sides, I would hope that organizations like FIRST would be above such behavior. If FIRST has let Lego or Pitsco force FTC to be more expensive than FLL, then shame on FIRST for not sticking up for the best interest of the students. Unless FIRST states this is 100% untrue, I will not start an FTC team. I like the FIRST mission, but Im not doing this to help Lego, IFI, Autodesk, or other stockholders. The kids need FIRSTs help, not those companies. If FIRST lowers the FRC price, I’d still like to do that. If not, I think I’m going to start looking at BEST, VEX or BOTBALL.

#79

Rick, like you I expect FIRST to work with partners and manufacturers who can deliver quality products, we agree on that. I think what you are missing is the timing. This agreement wasn’t made for the upcoming FTC platform and season. It was made years ago when Lego had absolutely nothing to do with the FVC program. It was made to keep middle schools from doing Vex instead of Lego and it was made to drive up the cost of fielding FVC teams to make FLL seem like a better deal. I have no problem with FIRST working with their partners in each program. But I find it hard to believe that you think it’s ok for FIRST to sell out one group of teams to benefit a corporate partner, for a FIRST partner to mandate and force schools not using their product to have to pay more to do other options. I’ll use your words - I find that type of deal to be sinister, to be an ulterior motive and to be deplorable.
You don’t have to believe me or any of the other people FIRST has disclosed this to - ask FIRST management directly like those on our committee did. When put on the spot, they did not lie about it, they admitted it (and one apologized and said they were ashamed and embarrassed to admit it). It sounds like you will also be disappointed to learn Lego and FIRST drove up the cost of one FIRST program to benefit FLL. If that doesn’t bother you and you can still support what they are doing, that is fine. I’m just saying I am very conflicted and troubled by what they have done. All of us in FIRST should have heard this directly from FIRST months ago, not through rumors, in committee meetings and on public forums, I agree with you on that also.

#80

FIRST has helped a number of companies make profits… or at least break even… over the years. There is nothing wrong with that… those companies have helped provide a great program to some great kids. Profits are not evil or unethical… they are required. Even for companies that deal with kids.

Right now we have information that FIRST has signed a pricing agreement. We can see some potential downsides from our perspective on teams, but don’t have any information on the potential upsides. The people I have met from FIRST head office are not incompetent or unethical… quite the contrary. I am confident they would not intentionally sign a deal that was not in the interest of the overall FIRST community from their analysis and perspective.

As for the cost/benefit analysis of FRC, I would stick to my previous comments that it is an expensive robotics program but that I wouldn’t want it to be “cheap”. I also support Rick’s comments that it is not out of line with other opportunities for young people. Some things are less expensive and some are more… but if you have 20 kids on an FRC team, the entry fees break down to about $300/kid… add some parts and a bit of travel and you are looking at around $500/head. About the cost of a PS3 and a couple games. Can you do basketball for less? Sure! Soccer, sure! Hockey, competitive swimming or skiing?? Not a chance.

Jason

#81

Well the Championships are in 2d 03h 57m according to my clock. I’m fairly sure FIRST will be fully explaining details of its program to everyone. In previous posts, I have highly critisized FIRST’s approach of not discloing full information to teams. However, in terms of its cash budget, from the looks of it, FIRST is rather reasonable (yes I am a business student). If I have some time after championships I will post a full ratio analysis for FIRST’s budget sheets.

In terms of FIRST’s deal with lego, I don’t like it too much but thats capitalism for you. Unless FIRST produces parts for itself and becomes a for-profit business, there’s not much they can do to prevent this from happenning.

#82

I don’t know Jason. Pricing agreements within a program are one thing. If FIRST does that with partners for a particular program, fine. But making a pricing agreement to raise the price on one group of schools because it would help a corporate partner control a market? That does not seem right or ethical. If Vex asked FIRST to raise the price of FLL to help Vex, I would expect FIRST to say no. If Lego wanted to raise or lower the cost of FLL, they should have that discussion with FIRST. But Lego should have nothing to do with pricing discussions for FTC or FRC, or at least FIRST shouldn’t let them have anything to do with it.

#83

I agree 100%, at least in the context that the motivation for making the deal is the key point. While I do not know, at present, what the motivation FIRST may have had for signing such a deal was, I am not prepared to assume that this means that they did it simply to “help a corporate partner control a market.”

When I find out more about the “why” and hear more than one side of the story, then if I disagree I will be more than willing to say so. Until then, I am quite comfortable in believing that FIRST would not intentionally or inadvertently sign a deal with no long-term upside for the greater FIRST community. The fact that we don’t see that upside immediately from our perspective does not mean that it doesn’t exist.* The FIRST executive and senior leadership (GDC, etc.) have earned my trust and respect over the past five years… even if I do disagree with their decisions from time to time.

Jason

  • Hmmm… next thing you know I’ll be saying “FIRST works in mysterious ways” or something like that… :]
#84

As has been pointed out in a few posts in this thread, having ~30% of the annual operating budget on hand is “safe and sane”. The $1M excess revenue for FIRST last year is <5% of its operating costs. Bloated? I think not.

If you think the teams are being gouged for registration fees, then consider that lowering them by only 10% makes FIRST financially “neutral” (based on the reported 2007 revenues and expenses). A team participating in two regionals and the Championship would save $1500 on registration fees. Is this a really a budget issue? Comparing those “savings” to the total budget for such a team doesn’t seem like something to get too worked up about. Is this too much for a team to pay for some insurance that an unfortunate incident (tornado, accident, platform change, etc.) doesn’t cripple the entire program?

I’m not a business man, but I think the return on investment in this program is fantastic. Yes, FRC is an expensive program, but the products (inspired students and entertaining, competitive events) are well worth those dollars.

#85

This is a side note to the conversation. That person was me (see my signature). Both before and after working for FIRST I was a part of the FIRST community. I have decided that, like any other business, what I learned while I was there is privileged information that I am not at liberty to discuss. Things like business agreements that are in place between FIRST and partners or sponsors are that type of information. If FIRST Chooses to
release information on it’s own that is their decision. Personally I won’t. I do respond to posts where I feel there are facts (that I beleive are in the public domain) that can or should be stated.

Personally I love FIRST and what it does. That doesn’t mean it is perfect. No company is. Is there a business partnership between LEGO and FIRST, yes. You wouldn’t expect such a successful program like FLL without one. No knowing what FIRST considers public on that agreement, I am not going to comment on what it may or may not contain. Also, having been gone a year, my knowlege may no longer be correct.

#86

While I’m not sure I fully agree with this statement, it brings up a point about FIRST sponsors and partners that I think must be made. Many of these relationships are business relationships. What I mean is that in general donating money to programs, or parts to the KOP is often done as a business arrangment. Any good business agreement is a win-win for both parties. Parts for the KOP are good for FIRST and may help a company get thier name our to 1500 High Schools (and related engineering mentors). Donating money at the FIRST corporate level may be done in hopes that sponsors names are remembered when kids graduate as engineers looking for jobs. All I’m saying is that both sides need to feel they are getting something out of a business arrangement. In fact, it may be because FIRST is good at developing that win-win feeling that our major sponsors return year after year. Outside of Radio Shack (whose business model changed) can anyone remember a sponsor that pulled major funding at the FIRST corporate level?

#87

I will not pretend that I understand everything about the agreements that are being discussed, but I can’t help notice a little irony in these discussions and the current attitude about the politics behind all of the decisions that are currently being made.

When you have a non-profit that is forced to work with profit organizations, you will always have to worry about the potential “cash cow” that can develop from a successful program. From the perspective of someone who watched VEX take off in my school, I can see where one company could potentially make a GREAT deal of money off of schools through the FTC program. I think that FIRST has made something of a statement that they do not with for FTC to go in a direction that will benefit only one company. They are open to changing the platform to keep that “cash cow” from developing into leverage for any one company.

However, what is happening on the FTC blog and here on CD is a great deal of complaining about moving to a new platform. What will really make us all happy? A corporate monopoly on FIRST equipment or a changing platform that inconviences us all? How can FIRST stay out of that type of corporate politics? They can’t. They can only survive the best way possible and we need to understand that. I may not agree with all of the decisions made or the results, but I do recognize an attempt to keep things balanced and that is what I am seeing play out at this time.

#88

I agree. I’ve seen John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Theory work way too many times to sit here and trust anyone anyonomous. If Chicago1st really believed what he is writing he would tell us his name. Either that or Brandon should check if he broke the rules like the last time this happened.

I’ve been googling other programs the past couple weeks, and I dont think your assumption is correct Rick. There are other robotics programs that seem to be very popular if you look at the forums, blogs and other info about them. BEST is free, Botball is around $2k, FLL and Vex are both $500-$1000. FRC is substantially more expensive than those programs. My question has been answered in this thread, and it seems clear FRC does not need to cost as much as it does. It does seem that FTC or Vex are still quality programs which require much less money and time.

You really didn’t think this out that well did you. You are comparing FIRST to other competitions whose robots are 1/10 the size of the others. At the size of a FIRST robot everything becomes expensive.

#89

I agree whole heartedly with this statement. One of the things that disturbs me is there is an undertone in our culture that says companies are bad, profits are bad, etc, etc.

The plain simple human behavorial economic fact is that everyone that participates in FIRST ‘profits’ in some manner. The profit may not be monetary, it may be easing their social conscience, it may be just pure fun and enjoyment, it may be starting a business doing something you love and putting some food on the table, it can be many different things.

Students, teachers, mentors, and sponsors are NOT going to join a team if they do not feel they are gaining a benefit, economic or non-economic. No one has a right to demand a one way sponsorship where only one party benefits. That is a one way transfer of wealth, and in contract law would become a null and void contract.

A not so hypothetical example - A company has top notch excess shop space that they have to pay rent and utilities on because their facility is just too big. It is a sunken fixed cost. If they give a few thousand square feet to a local team to have a nice dedicated space then after tax considerations they will actually improve their bottom line. It will improve their profits. Is that bad ? Of course not. Both parties win.

#90

Mnay non-profits keep cash reserves. Here are three: Habitat for Humanity $122 mil in 2007, Red cross $6 mil in 2007, $118 mil in 2006, Red Cross $24 mil in 2005. Why do these non-profits keep cash reserves? To be ready for disasters, new projects, expansion, etc. Would/could they benefit more people by spending this reserve vs keeping it? yes. Would they continue to operate as a corporation if they did? Probably not.

There is no problem keeping cash reserves for the right reason. Seems to me FIRST is doing what they should.

#91

It seems posters in this thread are taking statements out of context, molding them, and presenting them in a way to justify one of their pre-defined opinions. On both sides of the argument.

If there are facts to be laid out, throw them down. If you cannot take that route, anything you say should be and will be taken as opinion or misinformation.

#92

I agree with Tom on this one.

However…I will continue speculating…anyone think any of the discussion above could, in some way, be involved with the “Sneak Peek” to be presented this week?

#93

I agree with Tom too.

I was introduced to FIRST FRC back in 2000 when I did some wiring for Team 108 for a couple defunct mentors. At that time, I think it cost $3000 to participate in FRC. I was not involved in FIRST.

In comparison, gasoline was about 1.00 a gallon.

Fast forward 5 years. Our fee was $5-6K our first year. Gone were the drill motors, VB controllers, and other now-antiquated systems that were the rage in previous seasons. FLL and VEX were new programs. Gasoline was 2.00 per gallon.

Here in 2008, the fee is still $6000. Basically, the FRC controller platform is the same as 2005 for FRC. FLL has jumped leaps and bounds with it’s new controller over the RC Brick. Programming the NXT controller is so simple anyone can do it in 30 minutes. Gasoline is approaching $4.00 per gallon.

The 2008 FTC program promises a new robotic platform with easier programming of the controller along with more robust robotic construction material. Heavy machinery skills will not be required. I would expect this to cost more than VEX. It’s like comparing Nintendo 64 to Wii. I’m withholding judgment until I can view the new FTC kit at the Championship.

The bottom line is that everything tangible is going up like steel, concrete, petroleum, precious metals and food. Intangibles are increasing too like insurance, taxes, HS and college fees, more insurance, more taxes…

In many areas, incomes have stagnated for the most part. This is the stickler when it comes to these programs. At what point does it price you as a school organization or individual out of the program?

Maybe there were some regrettable decisions made on these programs, but creative thinkers will find a way to get it done if they see the benefit outweighing the cost.

#94