Late Sanctioning

[Plowboy]

If the American Royal was a day late in getting their packet into the office, would KCBS revoke their sanctioning?

Discuss...

[Bbq Bubba]

[Merl]

Originally Posted by Plowboy

If the American Royal was a day late in getting their packet into the office, would KCBS revoke their sanctioning?

Discuss...

Todd, I don't get it. The issues you address were about cooks and protecting the cooks. The sole issue was about reducing prize money. KCBS is requiring a letter of credit to protect future prize money for the cooks. Check the November minutes for a contest which did this. We have a policy that will allow it, as long as you follow procedures, which included in a timely fashion, advising the teams which have registered. But when not followed, I for one, will do everything to protect the cook.

I guess I should ask you, would you go to the royal if they reduced the prize money to $5000.00 (total) , after you registered, and drove there. I would be interested in the answer.

This is about looking out for the cooks. Nothing else. If KCBS does not protect the cooks who will?

Merl

[HoDeDo]

.... On that one, I think I will grab a Grey Goose.

They really did vote to remove BBQlossal from the Grandfather list. So anything is possible!! Why would you remove someone from the grandfather list? Just because they couldnt get sanctioning for this year? It isnt hurting or impacting anything... just motions for the sake of motions lol

But back to the royal lol

[HoDeDo]

Originally Posted by Merl

Todd, I don't get it. The issues you address were about cooks and protecting the cooks. The sole issue was about reducing prize money. KCBS is requiring a letter of credit to protect future prize money for the cooks. Check the November minutes for a contest which did this. We have a policy that will allow it, as long as you follow procedures, which included in a timely fashion, advising the teams which have registered. But when not followed, I for one, will do everything to protect the cook.

I guess I should ask you, would you go to the royal if they reduced the prize money to $5000.00 (total) , after you registered, and drove there. I would be interested in the answer.

This is about looking out for the cooks. Nothing else. If KCBS does not protect the cooks who will?

Merl

But the question is valid, right... If the royal lost another big sponsor, and didnt get thier letter of credit in on time - would they be allowed to sanction? Or get extensions on that. We saw last year that sams wasnt on site, price chopper cut back, cooker sponsor cut back, etc... without sponsor dollars, the bigs checks don't come... so is it better to work with the groups to allow those leters of credit to fit closer with the requirements of thier sponsors?

OR - would you rather see contests go the route of some events... and only guarantee a smaller amount of money, as protection for the event.... knowing that they will end up giving away much more than they 'guaranteed'. They allow you to do your own math, with the statement that 100% of entries go back to the teams.... so I know 60 teams will net alot more prize money than the 25 teams that they based a guarantee on.

We all want protection for the cooks.... but the take away is, that we dont have prize pots to protect without organizers going to get that money for us. Rather than choose "x" days out, as a hard and fast (and arbitrary?) date, work with the organizers, based on the size of the event, prize value, complexity of the venue, etc... to determine when a guarantee needs to be in place. And let the cooks make thier own informed decisions - as long as we know if prize money is guaranteed or not... we can make the decision with our checkbooks. And choose if we sign up before a guarantee is in place. Don't make the decision for me, and force me not to have a shot to enter a contest worth $20-$50K... Or take that sanctioning money away from the organization.

we can make informed decisions, as cooks, if we know whether or not the money is guaranteed yet, or tentitive.

[Merl]

Yes Andy that is what I am saying. We have a policy to help, but if you can't live within the rules, then that is what I would do. Protect what I think is the interest of the cooks. If you think the policy is bad, why did you not comment when on the agenda. I think this policy is fair. But some here want to find a reason to complain. I don't know why the Board works so hard to look out for the cooks, who now seem to not really care.

If you believe the KCBS policy is unfair to anyone organizer, explain to me why anyone is treated unfairly with the KCBS policy which you have deem unreasonable.

"Merl Whitebook made a motion to adopt the following policy concerning an emergency change in sanctioning of the cash prize money amounts guaranteed under KCBS sanctioning.

“It is the policy of KCBS that an organizer must pay in full the higher of its advertised amount of cash prize money or the amount provided in its guaranteed prize letter held by KCBS.

There are times when circumstances make it impossible to comply, such as the loss of a sponsor. Therefore it is the policy of KCBS that any time prior to 90 days from the date of the contest, an organizer may apply to the Board of KCBS asking for a modification of the cash prize money, upon the following terms:

1. The organizer must in writing, state the cause for the modification, and the Board must find good cause, such as loss of sponsor, in order to grant the request.
2. That all registered teams must be notified in writing (usps) and by e-mail of the change and have an opportunity for a full refund, any time prior to 15 days before the contest date.
3. That immediately upon approval by KCBS all applications, advertising and web sites of the contest, shall in a bold and conspicuous manner advertise the change and reduction in cash prize money.

It shall be the obligation of all Contest Reps to notify KCBS should they become aware of any violation of this or any other terms of the sanctioning agreement. Violation of the sanctioning agreement may cause a revocation of sanctioning of a contest.”

The motion was seconded by Paul Kirk

After discussion of the issue, Steve Ownby made a motion to call for the vote. Seconded by Paul Kirk
Vote:
10 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions
The Board moved to vote upon the motion."

[Plowboy]

Originally Posted by Merl

Todd, I don't get it. The issues you address were about cooks and protecting the cooks. The sole issue was about reducing prize money. KCBS is requiring a letter of credit to protect future prize money for the cooks. Check the November minutes for a contest which did this. We have a policy that will allow it, as long as you follow procedures, which included in a timely fashion, advising the teams which have registered. But when not followed, I for one, will do everything to protect the cook.

I guess I should ask you, would you go to the royal if they reduced the prize money to $5000.00 (total) , after you registered, and drove there. I would be interested in the answer.

This is about looking out for the cooks. Nothing else. If KCBS does not protect the cooks who will?

Merl

Yep, I'd go. My drive is 21 miles.

So again, if this was the Royal that got their paperwork in a day late, would we be having this discussion? We all know that we wouldn't. No way in hell KCBS is going to have any pull with a contest like the Jack or Royal. What's my point? I'm not sure. Just something I was thinking of.


EDIT: I guess I'm trying to think of this in a greater perspective than just the Cates organization. For the record, my team has never entered a Cates contest until the upcoming Little Rock contest. I've never met any of the Cates family. I don't plan to attend any other Cates contests this year.

[HoDeDo]

Merl, You are missing my point.
I am not saying I disagree with the process...but it could have more flexibility in it, and still maintain the same basic language. And again... what data points were used in setting 90 days as the proper amount? Why not 120 or 60? I'm not saying I know.... but I am saying... that rather than draw an arbitrary line in the sand... work with the organizers, and thier sponsors, to know what a REAL time line for guarantee of funds is, so you dont have to worry about exceptions or issues.

These types of events are going to happen if KCBS is there or not.... so why not work with these types of organizers, or thier sponsors, to determine how best to address the requirement for a guarantee. I am sure most would be more than happy to share the timelines for what it takes to open the purse strings.

Keep the process of protection, but base the timelines on individual needs of the event, after an informed request... (which could be inside 90 days)....
I think it will continue to come up.

And if we (as KCBS), decide not to be flexible, it really doesnt hurt me. I, as a cook, can go cook anything I want. IBCA, FBA, NEBS, or unsanctioned events. The local APWA has a great contest, so does Greeley KS (big peoples choice participation for fundraising for several youth orgs in the county) Cure of Ars Church, The local Eagles... If we dont work with some organizers, they will likely still have events, and I can choose to cook them... I just hate to see KCBS miss out on the sanctioning fees, and the visability due to stick to a "90 day" window that does not appear to be based on any organizer/sponsor(since they fund the $$) input.

[Ford]

Lula MS initially submitted paperwork on time (91 days) and they did sumbit all paperwork for a standard sanctioning package including a check for the sanctioning fee. At least that's my understanding. Because of changes to Hot Springs payouts last year the BOD also required a Letter of Credit not the standard payment guarantee letter from this organizer. Apparently there was some confusion about communications between the KCBS office (not the BOD) and the organizer. As a result the letter of credit was not included in the package. That's why the vote to not sanction was taken and passed at the Feb BOD meeting. It's all about the guarantee.

The motion to sanction at the special BOD meeting included a clause that said the organizer has 72 hours from the vote to provide said letter of credit. After the meeting it is my understanding that Ron who was on the call said it would be in the KCBS office this morning by around 9 am.

This was never about the 90 day rule despite what people try to do to make it so.

The vote to sanction Lula was 11-0.

[G$]

Originally Posted by Plowboy

So again, if this was the Royal that got their paperwork in a day late, would we be having this discussion? We all know that we wouldn't. No way in hell KCBS is going to have any pull with a contest like the Jack or Royal. What's my point? I'm not sure. Just something I was thinking of.

As long as you are asking wildly hypothetical questions (and it is an interesting one) , let me take a turn:

If the Royal or Jack knew they were going to be "a day late" with their paperwork, do you think they would be doing everything they could to keep the BOD informed on the reasons and timeline ahead of time?

[Ford]

To answer the initial question on being late, I'ts my opinion that late is late. You can usually submit all the paperwork well before 90 days if there is no "special requirements". Even the fee is refundable. So my opinion is that if it's late vote no.

Now if there are exceptional circumstances such as Jerry Jones can't commit to a date for sure until 75 days before, I'd still submit the paperwork with a couple of dates and say here's my paperwork so you know it's going to happen and as soon as I get the date I'll forward it. I understand that until there's a date it can't be sanctioned or advertised. Now that's communication and would solve the problem. From listening to the BOD last night I think everybody would be good with this. Of course that's just my opinion. The BOD wants to work with people but people need to work with the BOD as well. And that means using email and communicating to all BOD members not to a select few.

[Merl]

It only requires a fax machine and a credit card to be ontime.
We receive many applications this way when an organizer wants to make certain that contest is in time for the next board meeting. The majority want to do it before December 1, to protect their date from another contest taking it. The percentage of this being an issue is less than .007% out of nearly 300 organizers.

[Alexa RnQ]

Since we're relative newcomers, we don't know the history, so I'll ask the dumb question:

Has KCBS ever revoked sanctioning for a contest? Under what circumstances?

[Merl]

Originally Posted by DivaHerself

Since we're relative newcomers, we don't know the history, so I'll ask the dumb question:

Has KCBS ever revoked sanctioning for a contest? Under what circumstances?

KCBS has come close. We had a major organizer of multiple contest change the prize money. KCBS instructed the Reps not to go and notified the organizer. The organizer backed down.

A few other times, it did not come that close, but KCBS has had to protect the cooks.

Other times, KCBS has required financial assurances, when the issue of protecting the cooks as to the "cash prize money" payout has been an issue, as a requirement of sanctioning.

Merl

[Alexa RnQ]

Thanks, Merl.