RAYS room is Fri/Sat only that we are paying, he is paying for thurs. BEFORE we buy any roomnights we need to see if they credited us properly....these numbers just seem wrong. K On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, S. Hieber wrote: > I'm glad you asked. We're going to have Cheryl confirm my work and then there > will be a short quiz later this afternoon. > > In some scenarios it might make sense to boost the roomnights but I don't > think we're going to be in that situation. > > There are two penalties that come into play andthey are both based on the > number of roomnights sold: > > First, if we don't sell 90% of the 115 roomnights we asked for, we have to > pay for the rooms not rented (not counting the 10% allowance) - This means we > have to pay for the diff between roomnights rented and 104. Let's call this > the sleeper room penalty. So calling it will help us tell the two penalties > apart -- I asked them to wear diff color carnations but hey wouldn't > cooperate. > > Second, if we sell less than 115 roomnights, there is a sliding scale for the > cost of the meeting rooms. Let's call this the meeting room penalty. > > Here's why we won't pay for sleeper room penalties: > Given the number of rooms that AGA2K6 will be renting, which I believe comes > to 24 if we include Ray Lucas (we buy him 3 night, rights?) in the total > count, and given current figure, excluding speakers and Ray, of 78 roomnights > reserved/sold, we have a total of 102 roomnights. So we only need 104 to make > our threshold on the sleeper room penalty. I think we're bound to make that > between now and the convention. But even if we were facing sleeper room > penalties, it wouldn't help to just rent more nights since each one we rented > would offset the penalty with an additional roomnight charge. > > Here's why we might face meeting room penalties and why it might make sense > to buy roomnights just to avoid meeting room penalties. > We are 13 short of the threshold for the meeting rooms penalty. The penalty > if we sell between 100 and 115 roomnights is $500. We know we will sell at > least 100 roomnights so we don't have to worry about the higher penalties for > selling less than 100. Suppose we end up with 111 -114 roomnights sold. Then, > it will be worth the $448 to $112 to buy more roomnights to bring the total > up to 115 and avoid the $500 penalty. If we sold less than 111 roomnights, > then the cost of buying up the 5 or more rooms would cost more than $500 > penalty we would be trying to avoid. > > I still need to narrow down some things: > > Are the Danes staying 5 nights in the hotel or 4? > > Are we buying Ray 2 nights or 3? > > What is the current count of roomnights and does that include any AGA-paid > roomnights? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Karen Randall <krandall@rdrcpa.biz> > To: AGA BOD <aga-sc@thekrib.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 9:11:14 AM > Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] [AGA-conheads] Projections > > > Do these figures meam that at some point it makes sense for us to pay for > the extra regs, even if they aren't use, rather than take the penalty hit? > It would seem so from the amounts you have mentioned. > > Same thing with room nights. How far off are we? For an $8,000 loss, we > could buy 80 room nights, right? > > Karen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "S. Hieber" <> > To: "Convention Planning" <aga-conheads@thekrib.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:19 AM > Subject: Re: [AGA-conheads] Projections > > >> For those wondering why the big swings in financial results with what >> might seem small diffs in the number of paid regs, the reason is that the >> hotel contract was negotiated on and estimated turnout and there are >> penalties in the form of charges for unsold roomnights and for the meeting >> rooms if the thresholds are not met. In each case the charges are based on >> proportional or sliding scales, so as you move move farther from the >> threshold, the financial effects are greater. As you get closer to the >> threshold, those charges dwindle down to nothing. So at 90 regs AGA2K6 is >> estimated to about breakeven, at 80 it's estimated to have about a $3,000 >> loss and if the convention were held today, with 67 regs, a net loss of >> over $8,000. >> >> Compounding this, the average number of roomnights reserved per paid >> registrant is lower than it has been for other AGA conventions, which >> means, for AGA2K6, we need more registrants to make our roomnight >> threshold. Apparently, we aren't getting tourist extra-day stayovers that >> we had hoped for. At this point, purely form a financial point of view, >> it's really roomnights that will help more than the number of >> registrations, although we are unlikely to get more of the former without >> more of the latter. >> >> sh >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: S. Hieber <shieber@yahoo.com> >> To: aga-conheads <aga-conheads@thekrib.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:36:28 PM >> Subject: [AGA-conheads] Projections >> >> >> Right now, I'm projecting a financial breakeven if we hit 90 paid regs and >> about a $3,000 net loss if we have ten less than that. We currently have >> 67 paid regs, so hopefully we can pick up another 23 paid regs between now >> and the convention. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aga-conheads mailing list >> aga-conheads@thekrib.com >> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-conheads >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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