Well, this is a message I really wish I did not have to write, especially to an archive. I don't mind being a poster boy for imperfection but I screwed up - stripped the threads, broke of the head off the screw, and snapped the blade of the screw driver. All I did was leave out a single pair of parentheses in a nested formula concerning the "penalty" fees in the Marriot deal if we do reach the minimum number of banquets. Oh, poop! The error affects the Marriot results if we have less than 120 banquets and only significantly effects the results below breakeven for the Marriot deal. The correction raises the breakeven from about 95 paid registrants to 108. But the more significant effect is that the downside is much worse below breakeven - much closer to the Sheraton deal and instead of better than the Sheraton deal below breakeven, the Marriot deal is worse. A comparison is in the attached spreadsheet. On the left is the Sheraton deal using a stepped Reg fee of $49 for the first 50 and $59 thereafter and a Banquet fee of $35. In the middle is the Marriot deal using the same Reg fee but charging attendees $39 for the Banquet (the hotel charges $50). On the right, just for comparison, is a higher Reg fee ($59|$69) under the Marriot deal showing what it would take to bring the results up to those estimated for the Sheraton deal. Of course, we could always charge more for Reg at the Sheraton, too. I included a chart to show the general relationships but look at the *numbers* to understand the magnitudes. The table of numbers includes "Subjective Assessments" of the results - nonsense I threw in so I'd stop swearing. ?GWAPA? has considered the implications and still favors Marriot for the reasons previously mentioned (briefly, quality, competence, and capacity). I won't reitereate the all the pros and cons, but if you want a list let me know. Anecdote: The Sheraton only contains 201 rooms (only 40 doubles) while the Marriot is much larger (700) and more likely to have rooms available to accommodate a group up around 200 to 250. When Rick brought this up with Sheraton, they said it won?t be a problem because they hardly rent any rooms that time of year. (I reserve comment until later.) Motions anyone? Personal opinion [no facts here folks]: I think these Sheraton folks have consistently impressed us with a certain lack of competence as hoteliers. I suspect they are more likely to mess up the reservations, not have the right rooms available at the right time, incorrectly charge bills, etc. And they have been smarmy negotiators -- See? Now my comments are unreserved. The Marriot has been tough, but they never said "yes," then turned around and said "Oops, we mean no." When push comes to shove, I think the Sheraton is more likely to be like, say, the Houston Hilton. Purely on financial grounds, it's hard to refuse the Sheraton. It appears to be a slightly better deal at any attenandance level below roughly 200-250, which is probably where their capacity maxes out. Although the difference, imo, is less than the margin of uncertainty of the budget (easily give or take a thou or two), the Sheraton on paper is pretty consistently a bit better. Otoh, either deal is very likely to make good money. So with much ambivalence I reaffirm my support for the Marriot but urge everyone to reconsider but not necessarily recast their vote. sh ===== S. Hieber - - - - - - - - Amano Returns to the AGA Annual Convention Nov 12, 13 & 14, 2004 -- Crystal City, Virginia __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Attachment:
Sheraton Marriot comparison 5c.xls
Description: Sheraton Marriot comparison 5c.xls