"Since no one knows what was bid bor the 2003 AG Nationals"

i did not see the RFP (there's no reason i would, since i think it was sent to cities). but i believe that there were very few cities that responded in the positive. so shreveport was sort of the last man standing.

what would be in the RFP? probably a site fee, and/or an abatement of city services, as in, "you provide cops, public works, lifeguards, and open roads, no charge, and give us the use of a meeting hall." maybe there were also a few bucks asked for on top of that. but that's just a guess on my part.

i think if you get too few cities to respond, then you either lower your standards or you sell it better.

but look, remember when IM canada was threatening to move east? the whole city more/less took up a collection and got them to stay. while a municipality may or may not understand the value of USAT nationals, a smaller community with a lot of empty hotels and restaurants would definitely understand it.

but you don't know what you haven't got until you get it an lose it. so putting nat's in (let us say) CDA, having it there for a few years, and then asking the community for a site fee + free services is going to sound pretty good to them. i think it's hard to get that if you're be-bopping around the country from spot to spot.

i don't mind be-bopping, but only as long as the sites are good.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Lew, that's real interesting except I was at the December 2002 meeting when Mike Price of ESIX briefed on the entire insurance program and how it worked and where the costs incurred. Funny I didn't see you or Dan at that meeting. What I provided is what came out of that briefing. First you assume that the insurance is based on the figures you gave in this thread and guess what they aren't. In 2002, the base annual member figure was 38,000 NOT 47,000 and the base for one-days was 125,000. When the insured exceeds the standard there ARE increased charges. I think before you comment, you might want to contact ESIX and those in the industry before sounding off. It's easy sitting on the outside. Try taking some real responsibility here before you go "shooting from the hip".

And to those who think USAT might be paying too much for insurance, USCF pays much more and nearly 90 percent of that $50.00 goes to the insurance premium. Many on this thread are bashing USAT over it's insurance policy but in fact there is a finite amount of funds in the entire industry and 9/11 actually affected that sum, indirectly affecting the triathlon and sports industry as a whole. Add to that a sluggish national economy, insurance companies raise premiums to the insured to make up for lost revenue from their stocks and trading on the market. We are in fact fortunate to have the policy we have and that credit goes to ESIX.

Jack Weiss

Jack: You are in the wrong thread. This one is discussing standards for the Age Group National Championship. But just for the record, you are wrong about the premium increasing if memberships exceed the base figure. That may have been true in 2002, but that is old news. The 2003 USAT policy is unaudited - the premium is $630,000, no matter what the final numbers turn out to be.

---

Lew

"When the insured exceeds the standard there ARE increased charges. I think before you comment, you might want to contact ESIX and those in the industry before sounding off."

USAT's doesn't have an audited policy. this means the premium remains the same regardless of increases in numbers. check with ESIX, or with steve, they'll explain this to you.

this is as opposed to an audited policy, where the carrier looks at the books at the end of the year and affixes a credit or debit amount based on the actual risk incurred. in other words, i HAVE checked with "those in the industry," including myself, who was one of them in in a previous life.

"Many on this thread are bashing USAT over it's insurance policy"

i haven't gleaned that. i applaud USAT over its good work in getting the policy it's got, and you're right, ESIX and steve locke are due the kudos for that.

but back to the policy provisions. because our policy is not audited, it doesn't do us any good to try to get the one-days to pay their fair share. the more one-days we get, the incremental cost of the one-days goes down. when our sport is on the increase, as it is, we need to ride the wave and get as many people into the tent as we can. hence, we need to be careful over how much we charge the one-days for their insurance (which is why i'd like to see us go back to $7, and maybe even lower).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman