TargetTalk

Stan Pace wrote: However, wouldn't it be even more enticing for shooters if they could work toward the World Championships every year except the Olympic year? What is the logic for not having the World Championship more often?

Money

The World Championships is a big (as in VERY BIG) event - just go back over previous results lists and have a look at how many shooters in how many events. Anything that big takes lots of cash to set up and run (and no, the entry fees do not cover the costs).
Shotgun is in a different (money) situation to Rifle, Pistol and Running Target; they do not have the low profile of the other shooting events, nor the (comparatively) low cost mentality.

Regards,
Spencer

Stan Pace wrote:


I've run two National Championships and been involved with one World Championship, and none of them lost money. In fact, we simply projected the income from the number of entries expected (along with any other revenue) and, based upon projected expenses, calculated the entry fees required to break even or make a small profit. We estimated our expenses slightly high and our income slightly low. It worked perfectly.

I'm certain the ISSF has the capability to do the same.

Which World Championship?

Spencer

The 1983 IPSC World Shoot VI.

Just a bit different in scope, numbers and infrastructure.

IPSC can be run on a reasonably sized existing range (as at my home club).

An ISSF World Championship will not fit on an Olympic sized range (considered by most to be a fairly big range for shooter number capacity).
The ISSF World Championhips
- runs longer,
- has more events,
- has more competitors,
- covers all the ISSF events (including 300m rifle, and 50m Running Target that Olympic ranges do not have)
- has more range and administration personnel,
- typically requires a lot of additional temporary range infrastructure just to cope with the numbers,
- includes daily transport for all these people,
- has LOTS of compulsory drug testing

i.e. $$$.

Stan Pace wrote:One thing that might be an issue is I believe I read that the ISSF specifies what the entry fees must be. If this is the case, I can see how this match might be a financial disaster. Establishing an arbitrary entry fee, without regard for the specific financial circumstances of the hosting range, is a problem.

Does the ISSF put any cash into the World Championship themselves to underwrite it or is the hosting range expected to pull it off all by themselves? If they're going "solo", they should be able to set their own fees. This assumes they will be responsible and not try to make a pile of money on the matches.

ISSF rule 3.7.7 sets the fees at USD150/shooter/event and USD50/official. This fee includes local transport to/from the range.

Far from the ISSF putting additional money into the championships, the organisers have to pay the ISSF USD5/shooter/event.

on the outgoing side:
- there are 3 doping control tests at about US$1000 per 'senior' event, 23 events...
- transport is a killer expense. included in an ISSF championhip is transfers to/from airport, daily transfers to/from range of 1000+ people for about a fortnight.

trying to get any meaningful 'sponsorship' out of the accommodation, transport, etc. suppliers is an interesting exercise. yep! there are big bucks coming in, and they like to hang on to them.

Regards,
Spencer

""if these matches are being run and are actually losing money, one can certainly put the ISSF-mandated fixed fees near the top of the list of culprits."

yes, lets blame ISSF for all our troubles. Their match fees, in place for some years, no doubt based on an cheaper economy, do nothing to help the sport, they don't go to help transport officials to a match, they don't go for the ongoing office fucntions of planning, prepariong and coordinating matches worldwide in various languages, they don't go to creating and maintaining data bases of the shooters scores, none of that money is used for creating a nice four color magazine (and 4 language) to promote the sport. Nor is any of that money used for things like ISSF-TV where we can watch events on continents across the world or just plain office staff to see that all these things get done.

Yes, ISSF is stealing all the money from the international shooting sports, so lets dissassociate ourselves from ISSF just like us American international shooters did from the NRA.


and for those readers whose English is not their first language, the above is written very tongue-in cheek, meaning ISSF shooter fees are probably way too cheap all things considered, NOT too expensive.

Just my opinion,
Scott

Heck with the entry fees, transportation, and all that neat stuff, You gotta have some place to shoot the thing. I believe that there is only one active place where you stand a chance of putting it on in the US, and that's Ft. Benning where they do the world cup and NC. There's only one other place that stands a chance of being made usable for a reasonable cost and that would be the Olympic complex in Atlanta, and the local government there is hell bent on making sure that they never get to host world class events again. Most of the US ranges are set up in yards and almost nobody has the electronic targeting required for the Worlds. The thing is just too damn expensive to put on. That is why there are supposed to be regional and continental competitions in between the WC, with an Olympic every 4 years.

Then there's the strain on the NGB's to send shooters to the ones we do have. Not every country has the kind of money the US, Europe, or most of the commonwealth have to foot the bill.

Larry

funtoz wrote:Heck with the entry fees, transportation, and all that neat stuff, You gotta have some place to shoot the thing. I believe that there is only one active place where you stand a chance of putting it on in the US, and that's Ft. Benning where they do the world cup and NC. There's only one other place that stands a chance of being made usable for a reasonable cost and that would be the Olympic complex in Atlanta, and the local government there is hell bent on making sure that they never get to host world class events again.
Larry

Speaking of which, what's with this resignation on USA Shooting's part to give up the fight for Wolf Creek? Why can't they organize local pressure on the Fulton Cty officials. Heck, why can't they get some upset local to run for the board?
I'm not sending in more $$$ to USA Shooting for them to try & build a range of their own, when they can probably just buy Wolf. Dangle the bucks & the county will cave.

Wolf Creek--- where to start--- first have you been reading the updates form Bob Mitchell? in USAS News?---your statements unfornately show a very limited understanding of what has gone on, and what the issues that remain are. Your statement represent what an outsider looking in might say with only a limited knowledge of the real facts. USAS is doing the best it can with the information and facts that they have, and trying to do whats best for the sport.

all that said, Wolf Creek is not a dead issue, I was working Wolf Creek issues on Monday and Tuesday of this week with some powerful black politicians, as well meeting a very nice lady who lives just behind the range, who is already running a successful petition drive against the Commissioner. Honestly, I feel better about Wolf Creeks future right now than I have in almost a year.

I think I will had a new section to this BBS about wolf creek, since even I hardly ever visit the "SAVE WOLF CREEK" site anymore.

I too had given up on getting any information from the Wolf Creek web site. The most recent information that I had heard was not at all encouraging. I would not have been surprised (and still wouldn't be) to hear one day that the commissioner had shipped the targeting systems off to scrap in the middle of the night so that he could finish turning the complex into whatever he is so bent on achieving.

To think that a financial lightweight like USAS, in a politically incorrect activity like shooting, can intimidate local politicians into having some common sense shows a significant level of political naivety.

Now it would be very nice to get the Wolf Creek complex back as a world class shooting venue, but even if we do, we need another range or two that can serve the same function. A dedicated facility in Colorado Springs is a cool fantasy; a world championship capable facility near the middle of the country. Baring that dream, maybe we could resurrect the LA facilities so that we could hold major matches on alternate coasts.

Of course the better solution would be to finally have a manufacturer produce a standard scoring engine and scoring frame that could be used to upgrade military, police, and civilian ranges at a cost that didn't exceed the net worth of the rest of the facility.

Anyway, if a nation as rich and technologically advanced as the US can't keep a world championship facility going, I don't see much hope for a yearly match.