22 replies to this topic

[trial153]

Thanks again Carl.

This shows that most of the federations trials are not being used at as qualifying trials, bearing in mind that many clubs on that list have another licensed trial..it really shows that we are missing out on a big pool of dogs and beaglers that can be brought into the loop.
By blanket qualifying, and counting all the federation trials towards the consistency we can add interest an opportunity for more beaglers. Further more we could use this to enhance our federation run off...if we have more dogs qualified we can have bigger turnout, we can also maybe place a qualifier on the entries....say FC or 1st or 2nd place at a federation lic or sanctioned trial for that year....this brings plenty of dogs into the mix and should increase quality also....

A flat fee/dues achieves everything the Qualifying trial program was set up for and then some. How so? We wanted the per capita so that clubs support the federation, and we added the rule that you need to have qualifying trial in order to vote at the annual meeting so that we would give additional incentive to a club to hold a qualifier...hence pay the per capita and support the federation....so you can vote. Now you pay your dues, and get a vote...all your advertised/open to public trials are counted as qualifiers. Club are not dissuaded from using the licensed trials for fear of the higher per capita fees...

This is a win win for the federation and the clubs. It should be an easy sell also as the flat fee will be cheaper by far then if the club payed a per capita on all the entries on all its trails. Hopefully this would put a nail in coffin of the per capita model on the federation level......per capita being modeled after the AKC per capita system have been and always will be punitive to our clubs and should have fallen by the way side long ago.

[Dan Lang]

...John...my issue is the no trial no vote thing. I know I have brought this up several times, but it worth discussing again. Jimmy touched on it above also. If the club is a member, by paying dues to an assocaition,they should have a vote. I also think voting should be electronic and the clib should not have to show up to a meeting to have a vote. I know the intention orginally was to bring people together. We have to keep up with the times.

[Carl]

1) Only a bit more than 4 months until the annual NEBGF meeting. Lets get the details of this idea ironed out well in advance, so it can be presented for voting at the meeting. I have completed inputting all the IBGA, NEHBA & PBGA trials over on the www.nebgf.org site. For 2012 there are 163 trials being held between 2/5 and 11/18. Taking in to account the unused AKC national & July 4th weekends, that translates to 4+ trials per week. The breakdown is 45 All-Age, 41 Derby and 76 licensed events held by the 56 member clubs of the Federation.

Using the theory stated in several posts on this and similar topics, that the two licensed trial system has been a detriment to the sport, I propose that only one Licensed, one All-Age and one Derby trial count towards the NEBGF consistency. Furthermore I propose that if a club holds more than one trial of any type, the club will not have the choice of which is to count, but the first trial of the consistency year will automatically be counted for the club. The Federation should take the lead in trying to help member clubs increase trial entries and trial profit, by trying to decrease competing trials, as it doesn't seem like the clubs have the common sense or will to do it themselves.

The numbers below show that only 3 of the 56 clubs would be effected in regards to All-Age trials, while a bit more 31 (37%) of the 56 would be effected in regards to licensed trials. The question of whether a TCP trial would be considered a second trial would need to be discussed.


Number of NEBGF clubs holding 2 All-Age trials

2 PBGA
1 NEHBA
0 IBGA

Number of NEBGF clubs holding 2 Licensed trials

9 (30%) PBGA (1) TCP second trial
3 (30%) NEHBA (1) LP second trial
8 (50%) IBGA (2) TCP second trial




2) I propose that the Federation go to a annual member fee of $30 (projected revenue $1650) to replace the $100/association and .50/1.00 per capita fee system. The first year the clubs will pay two years and from that point forward will pay one year in advance. This will solve the problem of clubs advertising federation qualifiers without having paid their annual fee, as the federation will know well in advance if their trials will/will not qualify. This is revenue neutral, but will save a large number of hours on those who volunteer their time in federation offices, and make trial reporting easier on the FTS.

As a comparison the UBGF charges $75/year to over 70 clubs and also charges a per capita fee on all entries at any All-Age or Derby trial.


3) A four person committee consisting of one person from each association and a NEBGF representative should be created to work on trying to coordinate trial dates between the associations. Running two trials in close proximity, but opposite classes leads to increased entries at both trials. This is done to a degree within the associations, but needs to be looked at from the broader federation level.