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

[Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>]

Dunno for sure, The contract was for 115 nights but I
think the 115 was a percentage of the 144. Regardless,
the contract is what we are bound too. I will forward
it for information purposes in the next email.....

Regards,
Larry

--- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:

> Larry, why do they show us contracted for 144
> roomnights when it was 
> supposed to be 110 or so?
> 
>    - Erik
> 
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Larry Lampert wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >>
> >
> 
> -- 
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
> _______________________________________________
> 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