article 15 KCBS sanction app.

[BBQchef33]

Maybe if these were donated entries were really respected and created new teams attending the contests it would be a good thing.

But anybody who has seen the raffle and ensuing frenzy of teams trading and low balling to get a deal on the entry for a contest THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ANYWAY knows that it's little more than a fundraiser. KCBS used to keep the money. If it now goes to Kookers Kare it should be promoted eas such.

If I were an organizer I would decline and use the donation within my own world.

I agree with Ray and Phil. Either announce that all proceeds go to Kookers Kare, or get rid of the item on the application.

Exactly. at 15K, that raffle is a cash cow for KCBS. With the mentality of 1 hit paying an entry fee, folks don't think twice about dropping a few hundred dollars on raffle tickets. With the size of banquet attendance, that's big $$ for Kcbs, generated by organizers donations from events they have already given Kcbs over a grand to sanction. Like I recommended before, with the trickle down effect of those donated entries I don't see it being a blow to KCBS wallet if the credited an organizer the value(or portion) of an entry fee back into the sanctioning fee. That credit will go alot further to the teams as something tangible at a contest such as a little bigger prize pool or team breakfast, free ice, etc..... than it would in the hands of KCBS.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[dmprantz]

I was going by the wording published earlier in the thread, which appears to be the actual 2012 wording currently in use. (http://www.kcbs.us/pdf/2012_Sanctioning_Application.pdf) The way I read it is that a "condition" of being sanctioned is to make "best reasonable efforts" to donate an entry. Sounds more of a reqirement than the encouragement made in 2011. Personally, considering that KCBS is asking organizers to give something of value to them for free so that they can make money after already charging a fee, I think it should be a request if anything. I guess I'm too scemantical.

dmp

 

[Scottie]

I like that Phil ...

I think there were 15,000 tickets sold this year. That is a huge number and it keeps going up now that they allow tickets to be pre- purchased.

 

[Muzzlebrake]

I don't see what the big deal is. The raffle does raise a nice chunk of cash is definatley a highlight of the banquet. Its not a mandatory thing and I don't think the value of a donated entry is going to make or break a contest's budget.

I can see Phil's point though, KCBS might want to consider giving back to those who make it the success it is. Does a contest get anything in return for a donation?

 

[BBQchef33]

Nope.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Slamdunkpro]

It seems the further KCBS sticks its hand out while reducing services they feel they are the only game in town or they are just daring organizers to look at other sanctioning bodies. A question for organizers would be at what point does the expense outweigh the value of the brand?

 

[drbbq]

Or maybe even the International Innitiative?

I think that just happened but it remains a secret, so maybe they did use the raffle money to pay for it.

 

[Gowan]

Maybe if these were donated entries were really respected and created new teams attending the contests it would be a good thing.

But anybody who has seen the raffle and ensuing frenzy of teams trading and low balling to get a deal on the entry for a contest THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ANYWAY knows that it's little more than a fundraiser. KCBS used to keep the money. If it now goes to Kookers Kare it should be promoted eas such.

If I were an organizer I would decline and use the donation within my own world.

You nailed this one Ray.

As an organizer, one simply cannot hand out free entries like Halloween candy! I prefer to keep it as local as possible, and make such entries non-transferable. Events I am associated with will not give free passes to KCBS unless we are absolutely required to do so. The entry raffle has always been a voluntary thing in the past, and I can think of no good reason for that to change.

Here's an idea: if KCBS has some overwhelming need to have entries to raffle off, how about KCBS buys an entry from each contest? It's about time the BoD stopped making extra demands on organizers who are finding it increasingly difficult to keep these contests in the black. Kill off the contests and it won't matter how many cooks and judges there are when there is nowhere for them to go.

 

[BBQchef33]

2011 - "15. I understand that Organizers are encouraged to donate to KCBS one “free” entry for a team, to KCBS, which will be used to promote our contest at the annual banquet and as part of the KCBS events of at the banquet.

2012 - "15. I will use best possible efforts to donate to KCBS one free entry for a team, which will be used to promote our contest at the annual banquet and as part of the KCBS events at the banquet."


This is nothing but interesting.. in 2011, organizers had to "understand" that they are "encouraged" to give up a spot.

In 2012, We had to agree to " use best possible efforts".

i know its just symantecs, but someone had to sit and say 'lets change this".. and it unlikely the wording changed anyones perspective or decision making process... so if anything, it makes me curious as to the intent. Not thats its going to change anything..... but just curious.

btw...
A couple of folks asked me 'why not' give up the space.. well, in my case, with hard boundaries, we are limited on space. We can fit a fixed number of teams and no more. A contest that has unlimited space can just throw a spot into the raffle with no loss and drop the freebie team at the end of a row somewhere. In the cases of contests with limited real estate and $$$, we go down and entry fee, which is prize pool, contest funds, or the benefiting charity.

 

[Gowan]

At every contest I've been involved in running the prize pool is funded directly from entry fees, so each free entry given means a decrease in the payout to cooks.

 

[Jorge]

2011 - "15. I understand that Organizers are encouraged to donate to KCBS one “free” entry for a team, to KCBS, which will be used to promote our contest at the annual banquet and as part of the KCBS events of at the banquet.

2012 - "15. I will use best possible efforts to donate to KCBS one free entry for a team, which will be used to promote our contest at the annual banquet and as part of the KCBS events at the banquet."


This is nothing but interesting.. in 2011, organizers had to "understand" that they are "encouraged" to give up a spot.

In 2012, We had to agree to " use best possible efforts".

i know its just symantecs, but someone had to sit and say 'lets change this".. and it unlikely the wording changed anyones perspective or decision making process... so if anything, it makes me curious as to the intent. Not thats its going to change anything..... but just curious.

btw...
A couple of folks asked me 'why not' give up the space.. well, in my case, with hard boundaries, we are limited on space. We can fit a fixed number of teams and no more. A contest that has unlimited space can just throw a spot into the raffle with no loss and drop the freebie team at the end of a row somewhere. In the cases of contests with limited real estate and $$$, we go down and entry fee, which is prize pool, contest funds, or the benefiting charity.

Speaking solely for myself, and not KCBS or the board....

Changes were made to the document, regarding quiet hours. The Competitor Series sanctioning document had the same changes made as well as having the addendum that had previously been used added to create a separate sanctioning agreement.

Both documents were submitted to counsel for review prior to board approval. Some language was changed during that process to insure that the document achieved the desired result.

As the Chairman of the Sanctioning Committee I can tell you that I'm never told whether a contest organizer has given KCBS a free entry to their contest. I can tell you that I've never had any discussion with ANYONE regarding sanctioning a contest, or not, because a free entry was not donated. It is a non factor.

Again, speaking solely for myself....

For those that think that KCBS should be giving something back in exchange for a free entry, I'd be interested to learn what the proposed cost would be. KCBS sanctioned in excess of 400 contests last year. I don't know how many entries were donated. I don't know the total value of what those entries were. I don't know what percentage of return organizers would find acceptable. I don't have any way to determine what the potential cost of such policy would be at this point. I'm pretty confident that the proponents of such a policy don't either.

What I'm saying is that sometimes great ideas, turn out to be not so great when you sit down and work out the details. The idea is noted, and on my list.

 

[dmprantz]

Changes were made to the document, regarding quiet hours.

I noticed that, and thank you.

For those that think that KCBS should be giving something back in exchange for a free entry, I'd be interested to learn what the proposed cost would be.

I'll start the ball rolling with a suggestion: Any organizer who donated an entry to the previous year's banquet will receive a $200 discount off of the current year's sanctioning fee(s). If you want to calculate the value to KCBS and its banquet attending members and then come back with a different number, that's fine, but start there.

dmp

 

[Jorge]

I noticed that, and thank you.



I'll start the ball rolling with a suggestion: Any organizer who donated an entry to the previous year's banquet will receive a $200 discount off of the current year's sanctioning fee(s). If you want to calculate the value to KCBS and its banquet attending members and then come back with a different number, that's fine, but start there.

dmp

Speaking solely for myself, and not KCBS or the board...

Please explain to me how you determined that $200 was the right amount?

Do you know the collective value of entries donated? Do you know the individual value of those entries? In how many cases would KCBS be paying the organizer to accept a team?

And to be absolutely, perfectly clear, with no misunderstanding SPEAKING FOR MYSELF....

I'll consider your thoughts and suggestions, Daniel. As a customer of the organizers who are effectively our clients, I owe THEM that. When you become a member in good standing again I'll consider taking direction from you. I was elected to serve KCBS members, and clients.

I don't have time to debate or negotiate based on arbitrary numbers.

 

[Sledneck]

Jorge, are we ever going to get a statement /opinion as Jorge the kcbs bod guy that we voted for?

 

[BBQchef33]

well.... technically, if the donated entry is donated at the time of sanctioning then its not costing anything 'out pf pocket' if they discount the sanctioning fee by the cost of the entry. Instead of sending in $350 with the sanctioning agreement, and organizer would check the box for the donation, and send $350 MINUS whatever one entry fee is(up to $350 of course)..

It cant "cost" them money they never had. It would benefit KCBS by (probably) increasing the number of entries for the banquet, benefit the teams by getting shots at different contests and more raffle entries and it would benefit the organizers by not coming up short, and most important, it would be perceived as a 'value added" benefit.

 

[Jorge]

Jorge, are we ever going to get a statement /opinion as Jorge the kcbs bod guy that we voted for?

Sure, call me and I'll be really direct and to the point:mrgreen:

You can lob bombs, or chime in with a funny and walk away from it. I don't have that luxury. You can propose an idea without looking at the long term effect and walk away looking like a genius. I had that same luxury, as a member. I don't now. I've got an obligation to the membership and an organization.

I've got no problem being accountable for my actions or decisions. I've also got no problem asking others to be accountable for theirs. The easy thing to do is to ignore all input, but that's not the way I operate.

Since we have a personal relationship, I'd appreciate a personal call since you chose to question my integrity in public. That seems fair to me. I get it, I made myself a public figure of sorts and I'm willing to deal with it. At the same time, I don't have a problem with asking anyone to step up and discuss issues personally if they feel that they have the freedom to question my personal integrity, motives, or methods.

 

[dmprantz]

I'm rethinking this post....

 

[Jorge]

I'm rethinking this post....

I read the first version. Shoot me some email at gmullins at kcbs dot us and I'll send you my cell #.

 

[Scottie]

Why anyone would accept a nomination for the BOD is beyond me!!!!:shock:

I'll say it again. It is a thankless job. Although I try and thank our Directors whenever I am given the opportunity. I for one appreciate BOD members responding. Personally, for folks to attack or try to break down what your 'thoughts' are in a post just isn't right. Not a slam at Sled, cause I know Jorge has seen him in his underwear. So they are tight.

So thanks George, Steve, Dave, Jeff and Candy (hope I didn't miss someone) for posting. I might not agreevwith everything, but I appreciate it.

 

[BBQchef33]

In Admin Voice:

And to add to jorges post... here we have BOD folks who are willing to engage and discuss issues with us..a privledge we have not had much of in the past.. its in OUR best interest to keep those conversations 1 - respectful and 2- productive, otherwise we may again find ourselves on the outside looking in, making assumptions and speculating without finding out the facts or real reasons why things happen.