Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads] Projections

[Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>]

Not sure, I think they just did it to reserve some
extra for us. Per the contract it should not affect
us.



--- "S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks. How did we get bumped up on Fri and sat
> nights to 61 roomnights. That doesn't affect our
> threshold, right?
> 
> sh
>  
> * * * * * * * * * 
> The deadline is Oct 12 for getting the special
> Convention room rate!
>  
> Read about the Aquatic Gardeners Association
> Convention at 
> http://www.aquatic-gardeners.org/convention.html
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>
> To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board
> <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 10:16:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads] Projections
> 
> 
> I have attached our latest Hotel reservation pickup
> list. I still have not made our speaker reservations
> which I need to do this week. That will bump it up a
> little more.
> 
> Larry
> 
> --- "S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Folks that were SFBAAPS members didn't have to
> > become AGA members to reg for the convention. This
> > policy was the same as prior conventions. But we
> > didn't want folks signing up with SFBAAPS just to
> > get a cheap membership and reg for the convention,
> > so there was a cut off date, after which and AGA
> > membership is required to reg. The suggestion
> being
> > made by Jim is that we allow newer members at
> > SFBAAPS to reg without becoming AGA members. 
> > 
> > Actually, it could make sense for AGA short-term
> > financially, as would dropping the membership
> > requirement altogether for that matter. However,
> and
> > it's a big however, some folks already got AGA
> > members because they had to for the convention --
> so
> > there are refunds to consider and how do we
> > adjudicate who merits a refund? It is possible
> that
> > refunds could exceed the value of the additional
> > regs we get -- who knows since there's no way to
> > discern the appropriate amount of refudns. And
> > another big however is that our policy on the
> > membership requirement wasn't short-term
> financially
> > based, so the arguments about possible short-term
> > financial gains might not be particularly
> relevent.
> > 
> > I have to wonder if, $20 is a signifiant break
> point
> > in the demand for convention regs -- undoubtedly
> the
> > market is price sensitive. But if we wanted to use
> > price sentitivity to increase regs it would
> probalby
> > make more sense to drop the reg price to say $34
> and
> > still require membership rather than drop the cost
> > for new SFBAAPS members only.
> > 
> > sh
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Cheryl Rogers <cheryl@wilstream.com>
> > To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board
> > <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:49:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Fw: [AGA-conheads]
> Projections
> > 
> > 
> > This is what I don't get. What is he talking
> about.
> > SFBAAPS members were 
> > already grandfathered.
> > 
> > Cheryl
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > AGA-sc mailing list
> > AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> > http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-sc mailing list
> AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-sc mailing list
> AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> 

_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc