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

FIRST General Forum
#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