# 2010 Master National Loses $40,000K



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Our club received a letter announcing the Master National Club had to use $40,000 from reserves to put on the event. The letter suggested raising entry fees and club dues. 

I found the letter to be lacking a lot of information regarding financials or reasons why so much money was unexpectedly lost. 

I've never been to the Master National but, I gladly support it and I know many people in my club attend and many people come to our hunt tests because we are a MN club. 

Percentage wise, if my club unexpectedly went into our "reserves" at the same percentage rate of what I'm told the MN reserves are estimated to be, we'd be about broke. Just wondering how you can go that far into the hole without knowing you've spent WAY too much money ahead of time. 

What do you folks think since most of you are the people who attend hunt tests put on my MN clubs and support and attend the MN event? 

Should the MN club raise the event fees by $100 per entry and Club dues accordingly to make up for one years' lost revenue or put together a budget and plan to not lose that much money next year?


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

40k? sounds like an audit needs to take place.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I cannot see HOW that event could lose money.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

sounds like somebody had a heck of a party.........if it's true.

are you sure it was 40K and not 4K? just doesn't seem possible to me. i mean they collected in excess of 80K in entry fees alone.-Paul


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I bet they served that fancy French spring water in them purdy pink bottles I was talkin bout in that other thread!!

I'll just bet Ya!!

Gooser


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

was there a drastic change in # of entries year on year? one would think it would be relatively easy to plan considering a lot of the expenses are variable?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Regarding member clubs: It would be totally appropriate to ask for financial statements. Additionally, a written explanation and a comparative table of several years of budget items for the event should not be out of line either...


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I think something stinks.


----------



## J Connolly (Aug 16, 2007)

I wouldn't take it as gospel.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I am curious because I feel that our individuyal club has made a significant donation approved by our board and we take our financial responsibilities to our members very seriously. I feel that we as members of the MN club should possibly offer some help if needed to work on budget issues and avoid similar situations in the future. We're all facing tough times and need to cut back on spending to ensure our long term health of all clubs, hunt test, hrc and FT alike. 

I haven't asked but, maybe clubs should request financial statements backing up the reasons for the losses stated in the letter and justifying the proposed due and entry increases? 

Not trying to raise a problem but, the letter surprised me at our meeting and the dollar figure seemed a little shocking even with the understanding another flight was added because of the number of entries. PG


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

J Connolly said:


> I wouldn't take it as gospel.


Well, an official letter has been sent out to all clubs stating the MN went 40K into the reserves? Its pretty close to gospel? 

I know my clubs spending is closely tracked and available upon member request. Our board meeting minutes approve expenditures and those approved purchases are documented accordingly.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I might be mistaken but were the entry fees lowered last year?


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

I agree with Suelab, I think that I would be asking for financial statements from this event and previous events. My only experience is the HRC Grand which I know is run well and has been profitable for a long time. The MN being the same type event, it's hard to fathom the loos of $40,000. Curious.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I'd guess the MN club could raise entry and club fees just because they want to, regradless of whether they made or lost money.

I went to lunch the other day at a place we go to about once a week. When I went to pay, the price had gone up from $8.30 to $10.00. There was a sign on the cash register that read...

"Food costs have increased 5% making a price increase necessary."

You do the math. Bottom line is if you want to eat lunch at the Oakwood Cafe, you need to bring $10.


----------



## Margo Ellis (Jan 19, 2003)

helencalif said:


> I have no idea how the Master National Retriever Club operates. However, it is a nonprofit corporation and as such their Treasurer is the chief financial officer responsible for preparing financial reports. However, the financial statements the Treasurer prepares are after the fact reports.
> 
> While the Treasurer keeps track of the cookie jar, they are not responsible for minding the store.
> 
> ...


You stated your club was the host club this past year, does the club receive any funds from the MN for hosting the event? Example a percentage of the profits? Obviously in this case there wasn't a profit but I know in the HRC world the clubs do get something for hosting the event. 

Sounds like a huge loss and I for one would be asking the question.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Can someone post a scan of the letter? The actual wording may give some insight.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

I should think that a financial statement should be a necessity to all of the member clubs on a yearly basis. I thought that this was being done all along. Two of the clubs I currently belong to are MN members and before we cough up additional fees, I for one, will demand a financial statement be made available or recommend we do not continue as members.

All of our club's events have financial statements that are provided to the membership so that we know what was spent and why. I can't see why this is not true for the MN club. 

Something does not seem right. I really can't believe they would send a letter out stating they lost $40K and not provide some sort of explanation. 

Hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

Regards
Dawn


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Just a couple of comments:

First of all, the hosting clubs work their butts off; they do not make any decisions without a MN board member approval; they do the legwork and do not make definite arrangments without that approval; they do receive some monies from the MN but it is related to something other than the entry fees.

Second: I am sure that the location of the event determines the relative cost. For example, In Texas, a county fair ground was used for several of the activities, some amenities were discounted or free. 

In California, the event was held in a casino and on their grounds. The casino also prepared the meals for several meetings. Perhaps costs (birds, workers, facilities) were significantly higher.

I do not think that the entries were that much higher and even if they were, the cost per entry should have been the same. Additional judges would drive the cost up some but not the amount being presented...

Finally, the comment was that they went into their reserves. Perhaps, their reserves were built up by previous events that were less costly in other regions and the increase in costs was expected due to the west coast location???


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

SueLab said:


> In California, the event was held in a casino and on their grounds. The casino also prepared the meals for several meetings. Perhaps costs (birds, workers, facilities) were significantly higher.


Was the California casino the location for the event that lost 40K?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Apparently...I have not seen the letter or any financials.
Adjacent to the casino was the casino's hunt club and that was where the ht event was held.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Maybe a few of you folks might encourage your club boards to write a letter asking to view financials? 

Is MN club an AKC afflianted club? If they are, their bylaws would have to been approved by the akc which "should" mean they have the same requirements as most of our clubs. The way they are written requires an open books policy.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Of course they are an AKC affiliated club. 

There are specific rules (in the rule book) for their events that are alittle different than the local clubs.

I expect that there is no wrong doing and perhaps the location available in Ca. is the culprit - but again, perhaps it was the only available location for that region. 

Keep in mind, that a local club has to agree to host the event. If no other clubs on the west coast offered or those that did (and were not accepted) did not have suitalbe grounds, then you get what you can get.

This would be the case in each region, so...when it rotates to you club's region, step up and offer to host it...so that there are choices...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Wow. Sounds very much like NAHRA back in the late 90s. In this case, though, the MNRC's constitution seems to be quite clear. The delegate of any member club has the right to inspect the books, so I would imagine that you would be able to get this information by having your delegate contact the treasurer (whose contact information is on the web site). If they refused, you could go to DE (where MNRC is registered) Chancery Court and compel the release.



> The Treasurer's books shall be open at all times for inspection by the Board of Directors or any member thereof, or the delegate of any member club.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

As a rule of thumb, I would say that things cost more in CA. I don't know about $40k more...

The Indian tribe that owns the casino owns the land that the hunt club is on and an outside fellow owns and runs the hunt club as a business as far as I know. He also supplied the birds. I believe that the casino rented the rooms needed for the event and supplied the food and service for the dinners held there. The tribe also sprayed the road for dust and supplied rooms in the casino's hotel. 

They may have also have supplied tractor work for some ponds on site. Don't know who supplied the huge tent but I would assume it was the tribe. Obviously, there was a fee to use the grounds.

Now, I don't know but if all that adds up to a loss of 40k I would say that there is something amiss! Doesn't make sense!

Our own retriever club just had a hunt test there a couple of weeks ago and made a profit. Of course our expenses are much less but so are our entry fees!

BHB


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

whitefoot said:


> Was the California casino the location for the event that lost 40K?


I don't know if you were intending that to be a joke, but it made me laugh!..DP


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks Helen, I by no means what so ever am accusing anyone of wrongdoing. We're all volunteers and many of us work very hard to make events enjoyable for the masses. 

I'm just stating the letter which was distributed had little or no information regarding the statement made. I have been told MN bank account hovers around $125K normally. I have no idea to the truth of that statement. If assuming it does stay around that level, dipping into it for that percentage would be really painful. 

I think as a "Non-Profit" you are supposed to run your club as close to being free from profit as possible. I'm sure this gets hazy with corporate sponsors, large donations and big money making raffles. 

I'm not saying it is easy by any means. I know my club with deal with a small fraction of $40,000 on a yearly basis. 

I just didn't feel good about seeing that dues and entries will be increased based upon one year. Maybe a budget for the next year might be more prudent and ask for some help in areas which caused financial struggles. I'm sure every club asssociated with the MN has made it through years where money was tight and didn't raise fees as a response to an expensive year.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

helencalif said:


> No, the tribe had nothing to do with it.
> 
> The big tent, tables, and chairs were rented by the Master National Retriever Club. Because the host club had a BBQ pig roast on Sunday night as their fund raiser, the host club was charged 25% of the total rental cost. The host club's treasurer obtained a copy of the rental invoice and the host club's check for 25% ($457) was written directly to the rental company on Oct 8 when the tent people came to set up.
> 
> ...


Thanks for straightening me out! That's what happens when I assume...

That tent was a MUST! It was a great way to get out of the sun for everyone. And, yes, we know how hot it got! Thanks for your work!

It is kind of perplexing though, where the $40k got spent! It would be nice to know so that a lesson can be learned for next time.

BHB


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

BHB said:


> ...It is kind of perplexing though, where the $40k got spent! It would be nice to know so that a lesson can be learned for next time.
> 
> BHB


My understanding is that the test dogs required an excessive appearance fee. (how's it going Ray?  )

If you think about it, there are a LOT of costs in putting on that event for a week, bringing in judges, board members, hotels, travel costs, materials, LOTS of high quality birds (what do you think the bird bill for that event is?), etc. While a lot may be donated and covered by sponsors, I'm sure a lot is not.

The MN club actually lowered the entry price last year, since they were flush (although they may regret that now). While I would be curious to know where their expenses got away from them (assuming the $40K number thrown around is correct), I am not surprised that an event that big can have an expense sneak up on you and be out of proportion to what was expected.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

"I think as a "Non-Profit" you are supposed to run your club as close to being free from profit as possible."

Not so. There is a big difference between being a not-for-profit and an unprofitable organization. Or should be anyway. Any NFP has to run with an eye to the bottom line just as a for profit company must. The only difference is where the "profits" go. An NFP reinvests in its mission. A for profit distributes the wealth to the owners. At least that's the way it's supposed to work in theory. 

Waiting to see something official from MNRC regards.


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

40K isn't much my employer is $14 Trillion in the hole

Almost Furloughed Regards


----------



## Gun Dawg (Dec 18, 2010)

40K isn't much, My employer is $14 Trillion in the hole

Pocket change.......


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

helencalif said:


> An official "letter" (it says NEWS RELEASE at the top) was sent to Region 4 clubs (that's us in the west) telling the clubs that last year's Master National had to dip into the Master National Retriever Club's treasury $40,000. (I received it and have it in my hand as I type.)
> 
> It was signed by:
> Janet Peters, Past President (she was president last year during the Master National)
> ...


Well, I'm running the hunt test this weekend with Janet and Kevin. I'll ask them what the heck happened to 40k and for a fraction of that keep my mouth shut....

/Paul


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> ...and for a fraction of that keep my mouth shut....
> 
> /Paul


Yeah...right...like that's ever gonna happen. 

If that were true, your long suffering GF would have coughed up the money long ago, Hahahaha...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ron in Portland said:


> Yeah...right...like that's ever gonna happen.
> 
> If that were true, your long suffering GF would have coughed up the money long ago, Hahahaha...


Trust me. She has found ways to keep my mouth busy....

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Trust me. She has found ways to keep my mouth busy....
> 
> /Paul


Easy! Don't go tickin' Kevin off- we're still working on getting his daughter to work at our HT this August!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Easy! Don't go tickin' Kevin off- we're still working on getting his daughter to work at our HT this August!


I've judged your HT in August. Miserable. Shantell is much to smart for that. 

/Paul


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

"I don't know why you are "waiting to see something official from MNRC". "

Thanks for info. Up unitl your post this was all scuttlebutt. Perhaps you could post the whole letter here? There is nothing on the MNRC website - at least nothing I could find - and our club has not received any communication regarding the purported loss. Any clubs in other regions get anything from MNRC?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I don't have the ability to scan and post it. I can probably get a scan and email if you'd like a copy. 

Shantell has worked for us- the only kid I've ever seen run to plant every blind. Not to mention barefoot the whole day? She was up here for Cindy's surprise birthday a few weeks back-


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

I went to the delegate's meeting at the 2010 Master National and ONE thing I remember from the meeting is that when the event is on the West coast, or Region 4 or maybe just in California, they usually lose money. So they have to make up for it on others years where costs are not so high.

The BOD probably should not have lowered fees this year. But it looks like there were reserves and losing money was not entirely unexpected.
I wonder what happened in 2006 when it was last in Region 4 and in California as well?

Debbie Tandoc
San Jose, CA


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I don't have the ability to scan and post it. I can probably get a scan and email if you'd like a copy.
> 
> *Shantell has worked for us- the only kid I've ever seen run to plant every blind. Not to mention barefoot the whole day?* She was up here for Cindy's surprise birthday a few weeks back-


Is she a blonde girl that was traveling around with her Uncle last year? Damn, I can't come up with his name at the moment but he judged quite a few tests. I remember sitting in the gallery commenting on how hard that girl worked. So hard that I was surprised to keep seeing her turn up at more and more tests!


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Do these people work for the government in their non-dog life?? This just seems like what the federal government would come out with. We are a trillion dollars in the hole, so now we have to raise taxes (yes that is you folks again) to pay for this. What? You want an explanation?? 

Regards
Dawn


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

What it boils down to is that the MN paid an additional $110.00 (plus or minus) for each entrant *in addition to entry fees, all other corporate donations, profits from the raffle and MN product sales profit*

So the figure of interest is costs divided by number of entries...


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Let's blame it on Frankies's Party. I've heard that it gets pretty wild on the west coast circuit...even upgrading from coleslaw to macaroni salad. Oh wait a minute...corporate sponsorship pays for that bash also?? Must be something else then...slot machines and jacuzzi's in the judges hotel rooms...how about that medical marajuana kiosk in the hotel??
Oh those are just rumors too??? We demand a full accounting.


----------



## Terry A (Jul 1, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Regarding member clubs: It would be totally appropriate to ask for financial statements. Additionally, a written explanation and a comparative table of several years of budget items for the event should not be out of line either...


I agree 100%


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Let's blame it on Frankies's Party. I've heard that it gets pretty wild on the west coast circuit...even upgrading from coleslaw to macaroni salad. Oh wait a minute...corporate sponsorship pays for that bash also?? Must be something else then...slot machines and jacuzzi's in the judges hotel rooms...how about that medical marajuana kiosk in the hotel??
> Oh those are just rumors too??? We demand a full accounting.










Best post on the thread


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Mike Berube said:


> Let's blame it on Frankies's Party. I've heard that it gets pretty wild on the west coast circuit...even upgrading from coleslaw to macaroni salad. Oh wait a minute...corporate sponsorship pays for that bash also?? Must be something else then...slot machines and jacuzzi's in the judges hotel rooms...how about that medical marajuana kiosk in the hotel??
> Oh those are just rumors too??? We demand a full accounting.


This guy makes the best lemonade when life gives him lemons . Too funny


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

Ron in Portland said:


> My understanding is that the test dogs required an *excessive appearance fee*. (how's it going Ray?  )
> 
> Appearance fee???? Do you know how much I had to pay to get called back every series?;-)
> 
> ...


I thought we just learned a lesson of what assuming does to a person!;-)

I also wonder if that is the correct figure, though. 

BHB


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

Mike Berube said:


> Let's blame it on Frankies's Party. I've heard that it gets pretty wild on the west coast circuit...even upgrading from coleslaw to macaroni salad. Oh wait a minute...corporate sponsorship pays for that bash also?? Must be something else then...slot machines and jacuzzi's in the judges hotel rooms...how about that medical marajuana kiosk in the hotel??
> Oh those are just rumors too??? We demand a full accounting.


Coleslaw?? Macaroni salad??? Heck, by the time I got done working and waiting in line that evening there was only steak and cake left!

Clogged arteries regards,

BHB


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

... none of this makes any difference since none of us are in the position to try to make improvements in the future events...if planning/financial improvement is desired...


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Well my understanding is that the MN has approx $300k in the bank. So really, I think they SHOULD run at a loss for a couple of years.

That amount is excessive to have just sitting around.

WRL


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

helencalif said:


> .... the Master National Retriever Club .... is a nonprofit corporation and as such their Treasurer is the chief financial officer responsible for preparing financial reports.
> 
> While the Treasurer keeps track of the cookie jar, they are not responsible for minding the store.
> 
> ...


Who is responsible for minding the store? ANS: the MNRC Board and their leader. 


the 1010 President: JANET PETERS :monkey:


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Good Dogs said:


> "I don't know why you are "waiting to see something official from MNRC". "
> 
> Thanks for info. Up unitl your post this was all scuttlebutt. Perhaps you could post the whole letter here? There is nothing on the MNRC website - at least nothing I could find - and our club has not received any communication regarding the purported loss. Any clubs in other regions get anything from MNRC?


Dear Master National Retriever Club Region IV Members:

Your Region IV board members (Past President Janet Peters, Director Kevin Bunnell, and Vice President Janet Wood) *have just returned from our winter meeting in Cambridge, Maryland* – site of the 2011 Master National Hunt Test.

There were many items for discussion, clarification and decision making, and we’d like to provide you with highlights below.

First we would like to say THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!! to the many Region IV folks who devoted their time and energy to making the 2010 event in Corning the huge success it was. You all ROCKED! We broke new ground with the addition of a 3rd stake, making for coordination and logistical nightmares. Yet with everyone’s help we pulled it off.

Event Entry Fees: The not-so-good news is that putting on such a large event was not cheap, and *the Master National had to use $40,000 from our reserve.* _*Although not the only cause of this increase*_, lowering the entry fees in 2008 and 2009 did not help. At the time our bank balance was very healthy and the Board thought they were doing the right thing by passing a savings on to entrants. Now our budget tells us we need to adjust entry fees upward. *The Board therefore voted to increase entry fees in 2011 to $325 per dog.* We are all wincing at this increase, but *after a very careful and through review of the event budget by the Board*, we believe it is necessary. We cannot afford another $40,000 hit.

*The Board is also considering an increase in Annual Club dues.* The dues have remained at $50 for the 20 year history of the Master National, so the *proposal to possibly increase dues $75 to $100 *is not unreasonable. This has NOT been voted on yet, but we wanted to give all our member clubs a heads up that it may be coming. We would like your input on this subject.

New Sponsor: Our Corporate Sponsor Liason Team has been hard at work to line up corporate sponsor to help defray expenses. We are please to announce that Cabellas has signed a 2 year contract with the Master National, and will be providing a large cash donation as well as in-kind donations each year. Next time you are shopping at Cabellas thank them for their generous support of our sport and event. And thanks to Terri Stevens for bringing this great new sponsor to the Master National.

Secretary and Treasurer Positions up for election: Frank Barton has been holding both Secretary and Treasurer Positions on the Board. We all recognize that with the growth of the event it’s just too much for 1 person to cover both positions. Frank plans to run for re-election as Secretary, so we are looking for candidates for Treasurer. The Secretary and Treasurer positions are voted on by the club delegates at the annual meeting. The Secretary position is for 4 years. The Treasurer position is for 4 years.
Summary of Secretary Duties:
The Secretary is elected by the entire club membership for a term of four years. The primary duties include the formal written communication emanating from the MNRC to member clubs and all outside agencies. This position records all official minutes of meetings held. All formal mailings from the MNRC originate from the Secretary with coordination of the President and one Vice President as a minimum. The Secretary also sends and receives the annual premium for the MNHRT and coordinates the selection of the method for determining the running order of entries at the MNHRT. He/she will also arrange the printing of the catalog for the annual MNHRT. The Secretary maintains the following databases: member clubs (delegates and club contacts), charter members, handlers and owners, key individuals, major sponsors, and MNR/multi-year
qualifiers.
*Summary of Treasurer Duties:*
The Treasurer is elected by the entire club membership and holds this term for four years (as noted in Section 1.2, one person may hold both the Treasurer’s and Secretary’s office). *This individual is responsible for financial business and the fiscal well being of the MNRC. He/she will conduct all monetary business for the club and maintain all records for audits *concerning the MNRC’s financial position. This person sends out the annual dues to the club contacts and delegates and assures the timely payment of such dues. Any financial arrangement necessary for the MNRC will be processed through this office.
If you are interested in running for Secretary or Treasurer - or know someone who might be interested - please contact either Kevin Bunnell at [email protected] – 541-679-2802 or Janet Wood at [email protected] - 510-787-2103. Nominations will be taken from the floor at the delegates meeting.

2012 Judges:
Along with thinking about Master National Board elections, it time to start thinking about our 2012 Judges Nominations.
· Kevin will be mailing out the judges selection form shortly. This form needs to be completed and returned to Kevin Bunnell by 4/30/11.

2011 Test Grounds:
*Big item on the agenda for this Board meeting was a review of the test grounds that have been made available to the MNRC for our upcoming event.* Off we trundled in a caravan, jumping out to survey the various areas Host Club Event Chair Frank Durham presented. (You can see a great slideshow of the grounds on our website) We saw plenty of land – mostly flat fields which will have planted cover in October, with some rolling terrain at the overgrown golf course. We had no trouble imagining challenging tests. There are multiple ponds, including a stick pond. It was quite windy the day we toured, so remember to practice your overs into the wind!

There is, and will be, more information available about the upcoming Master National Hunt Test event on our web site. The host club Susquehanna Retriever Club also has a web site that is also linked to ours, and visa versa. So, be sure to look these up.

Retiring Dogs:
If there is anyone in one of our region clubs that will be retiring a dog that is a MN participant, please complete the Retiring Dog information form available on our website. Your dog will be added to a very impressive and well done CD that will be played during the handlers’ banquet. This has been done the last couple of days, and there is not a dry eye in the house. We really are a family.

Club Contact and Delegate Information:
Included in the correspondence with your judge’s selection letter, Kevin will include a club contact and delegate form to be completed. We plan to do this annually to keep information more current. It will be due back to Kevin Bunnell by 4/30/11 along with the judge’s nomination selection.


Respectfully;
Janet Wood, V.P.
Kevin Bunnell, Director
Janet Peters, Past President


Upon reading this letter:


There does exist a financial report listing line item expenses 
The MNRC Board doesn't feel the need to consider other ways to cut expenses such as no longer reimbursing it's members for cross country trips to view grounds that have already been decided upon!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Let's blame it on Frankies's Party. I've heard that it gets pretty wild on the west coast circuit...even upgrading from coleslaw to macaroni salad. Oh wait a minute...corporate sponsorship pays for that bash also?? Must be something else then...slot machines and jacuzzi's in the judges hotel rooms...how about that medical marajuana kiosk in the hotel??
> Oh those are just rumors too??? We demand a full accounting.


Mike. PM sent


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

WRL said:


> Well my understanding is that the MN has approx $300k in the bank. So really, I think they SHOULD run at a loss for a couple of years.That amount is excessive to have just sitting around.
> 
> WRL


Now that is funny. 

I guess the Officers and Board thought the MN had too much money, too, and they spent (or allowed to be spent) $40,000 beyond the $180,00+ they had as income that came in last year to put it on. 

Helen


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Who is responsible for minding the store? ANS: the MNRC Board and their leader.
> 
> 
> the 1010 President: JANET PETERS :monkey:


Hmmmmm I gotta say that she carries her age well.

Well preserved regards

Bubba


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Bubba said:


> Hmmmmm I gotta say that she carries her age well.
> 
> Well preserved regards
> 
> Bubba


 OOps, I meant to say: 

the 101010 President: JANET PETERS 

Now that's a figure that even Triggy would be proud of.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

helencalif said:


> Running in hunt tests and shooting to qualify for a Master National? Become an Officer or Board member and it is an _all-expense paid trip to run your dog._


Wow, the Board is reimbursed 100%. Perhaps its time for them to demo their love for the sport and the MN. Particular when you consider the Region IV letter ..

Excerpt from the Region IV Letter:



> The Board therefore voted to increase entry fees in 2011 to $325 per dog. _*We are all wincing at this increase ... *_





> The Board is also considering an increase in Annual Club dues. The dues have remained at $50 for the 20 year history of the Master National, so the proposal to possibly increase dues $75 to $100 is not unreasonable.


Given the state of the economy, it is "not unreasonable" to expect the MN Board to pay for their hotel and entry fees like every one else. At $4.00 a gallon of gas, they need to pay for their travel like every one else.

It would be nice to think that anyone could be elected to the MNRC Board in order to get a free ride to the MN. But, getting on the Board is political: an "old boys" club which rivals anything that FT community puts on. Regarding all that work ... lots of hours and footwork from the local club members and I haven't heard of their entry fees being paid. 

Just say'in


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

black_dog84 said:


> Wow. It sounds like some body stole some big money and they need to find out who it is.


No, I doubt that anyone stole any money.

It "sounds" like the MNRC Board and President were arrogant and incompetent, blasted through the budget set for the event, refuse to take responsibility for their ineptitude, and want to "pass on" the fruits of their malfeasance to next year's MN participants and the MNRC member clubs. 

"Accountability" *NOT*.

Just say'in


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

black_dog84 said:


> Wow. It sounds like some body stole some big money and they need to find out who it is.


I am as concerned as the next person, but public accusations of theft is uncalled for.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

black_dog84 said:


> Wow. It sounds like some body stole some big money and they need to find out who it is.


Black Dog....please see your private message.

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> I am as concerned as the next person, but public accusations of theft is uncalled for.


Ditto that- no way shape or form want to see folks who work hard be accused of wrong doings in any way. I made a point it was a significant loss and surprising. If someone was stealing money it would be announced differently I'm certain. We all work hard to keep these games alive. I'm not completely convinced that the west coast is the reason for the loss or, the higher entries are a good reason either...

Raising club dues is completely valid, just not the percentage that is proposed nor, entries. My club is probably some of the lowest cost hunt tests around and we make money. We have fairly expensive ground rentals and pay as much for birds as anyone else- adding numbers to tests makes more money via volume- same as any product- its more cost effective to do the same thing 30 times in a row than doing it 5 times- no different than any business model.


----------



## Rip Shively (Sep 5, 2007)

I have no idea on why the MN club lost money for the 2010 event. I do believe it is unfair to insinuate board members and officers are taking advantage of expenses being paid or making unnecessary trips, etc. These individuals volunteer countless hours throughout the year to ensure the event is held for everyone's benefit. If you want to see the expense report make a request through your club or other appropriate channels.

If you have an axe to grind I suggest speaking directly with the individual rather than through this board.

Rip Shively


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Pheasantomeetyou said: "It "sounds" like the MNRC Board and President were arrogant and incompetent, blasted through the budget set for the event, refuse to take responsibility for their ineptitude, and want to "pass on" the fruits of their malfeasance to next year's MN participants and the MNRC member clubs."

To make those kinds of accusations based solely on scuttlebutt on the web is inappropriate and totally uncalled for. If you have questions about the expenses or acions of the MNRC board the appropriate place to raise those is directly with them not in an anyonomous web bash.

Bob Swift


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> To make those kinds of accusations based solely on scuttlebutt on the web is inappropriate and totally uncalled for. If you have questions about the expenses or acions of the MNRC board the appropriate place to raise those is directly with them not in an anyonomous web bash.
> 
> Bob Swift


Well in my humble opinion, if the MN in fact lost $40K, then the least those folks deserve is a web bashing.

Do you care to set the record straight?

With all the air traffic control folks falling asleep lately, sure seems like a lot of folks are sleeping on the job these days...


----------



## tracyw (Aug 28, 2008)

Master National clubs receive additional entries in their hunt test because they are MN clubs so I have no problem with the proposed increase for their dues. I do believe that a $100 increase per entrant at the 2011 MN is NOT acceptable! We should NOT have to pay for last year's mistakes! Maryland is going to be very expensive for hotels and now you want to increase the entry fee because last year's event was really loose with their funds. It is just not fair!


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I heard it said that California was expensive and difficult for the MN...but other parts of the country make a profit. 

So, did the board expect that loss? Did events in other parts of the country reap profits which were put in reserve for the "non-profitable event"? Was the $40,000 just part of having an event on the West coast? And if "Yes", then why all the panic and raising of entries, etc.?


----------



## tshuntin (Mar 22, 2003)

If the MNRC lost money (and had to go into their reserves) because of lower entry fees this past year, or higher costs of putting on the event, or whatever, I am glad they have been fiscally responsible enough in the past that they were able to do this....


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Our club will review what value we receive for this cost, if its just a name on a registery, I cannot see the benefit to our club. I have not heard of one perk coming our way to be apart of this Org, just increased costs for what. Please enlighten me on what benefits our club gets for by being apart of MN.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Joe Brakke said:


> Please enlighten me on what benefits our club gets for by being apart of MN.


The only benefit you get, as far as I can see, is that the Master passes count towards MN qualification. This translates directly into more entries. If you don't want the entries, dropping the MNRC membership would be a good way to cut them down.


When I looked into what it took for a new club to be a member of the MNRC, I was frankly surprised that it was only $50. Less than one entry and it paid for itself with the old fees.


----------



## Art Stoner (Nov 18, 2007)

If you are not a MN club I might find another place to run that weekend so any pass I might get would count towards qualifying for the MN.

I suspect I am not alone on this.

Art


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Art Stoner said:


> If you are not a MN club I might find another place to run that weekend so any pass I might get would count towards qualifying for the MN.
> 
> I suspect I am not alone on this.
> 
> Art


We expect the change will occur for 2012, we already paid our 2011 dues, no issue for 2011 tests. We would like to have a voice on this change, we'll see. 2011 will be know as the price increase year with EE and gas at $3.50.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Art Stoner said:


> If you are not a MN club I might find another place to run that weekend so any pass I might get would count towards qualifying for the MN.
> 
> I suspect I am not alone on this.
> 
> Art


You are not alone. ;-)


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Art Stoner said:


> If you are not a MN club I might find another place to run that weekend so any pass I might get would count towards qualifying for the MN.
> 
> I suspect I am not alone on this.
> 
> Art



Very true. It is an unhealthy grip that the MNRC has upon members.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

SueLab said:


> I heard it said that California was expensive and difficult for the MN...but other parts of the country make a profit.


The Master National was held in California in 2006. Did it lose or make money that year?

If it lost, did 2006 dip into the Treasury $40,000 ?

What were the entry fees in 2006 when it was held in California? 

It has been said that the MNRC Officers and Board voted to lower entry fees after 2006. If they were lowered after it was held in California in 2006, why would they do that ... knowing it would be held in Calif. in 2010?

Who's minding the store?

Just asking,
Helen


----------



## troy schwab (Mar 9, 2010)

I dont have a dog in this fight..... but I cant believe that this continues to be nothing more than a bunch of speculation..... Where are the friggin receipts?????? No one seems to care, or no one has access to them????? Which is it?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I'd say that if a club choose not to re-apply for MN membership you'd see a significant drop on your Master level enties. Shouldn't effect JH or SH. But then again, in my experience a clubs usually loses money on the master test; it's the more expensive test, and has less entries. The club makes the money back on the other stakes. So the desicion might be finaically sound. But as someone who runs a MH dog, I wouldn't run a non-MN tests.


----------



## Ben_ferguson (Apr 5, 2011)

Wow. That's not good


----------



## Art Stoner (Nov 18, 2007)

Joe Brakke said:


> We expect the change will occur for 2012, we already paid our 2011 dues, no issue for 2011 tests. We would like to have a voice on this change, we'll see. 2011 will be know as the price increase year with EE and gas at $3.50.


 
Joe

I think you will have trouble with membership as well. May not be a good reason to belong if the club is not holding MN sanctioned events.

Art


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

troy schwab said:


> I dont have a dog in this fight..... but I cant believe that this continues to be nothing more than a bunch of speculation..... Where are the friggin receipts?????? No one seems to care, or no one has access to them????? Which is it?


 
Clubs are run properly and have procedure to follow regarding requesting statements etc. In no way shape or form should the MNRC be expected to reply to this thread on a web page. 

I believe our club, like others will be sending formal letters in response requesting information through the appropriate avenues. Once a response is returned to the formal member MNRC clubs it can be a follow up discussion in a forum such as this. We all are volunteers which we understand makes things a little more difficult because most of us have 50+ an hour week jobs and spend our freetime working for clubs and putting on events. 

My only intention was to get some opinions of other MN clubs who I can't normally communicate with regarding their feelings to the letter which was distributed. 

I definately hope speculations of theft, scuttlebut(which this IS NOT) or any other derogatory feelings are voiced elsewhere. I feel perfectly ok with disagreement, discussion and debate although, a few comments here seem pretty inappropriate even by my own, sometimes low, standards....

Thanks- Paul


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

According to the 2010 Master National catalog... 157 clubs paid $50 dues in 2010 to belong to the Master National Retriever Club. 

I am wondering if all clubs received the same letter regarding the $40,000 loss, raised entry fees, and soon to be raised club dues to help recover some of the $40,000.

It will take years for the $325 entry fees and for $100 club dues to recoup the $40,000 that was spent over and beyond its income for 2010.

Back to 157 member clubs ... I am wondering if ALL clulbs got the letter or just some.

If a club was sent the letter, whoever gets the club's mail would have to bring the letter to a club meeting so more than the person who picked up the mail knows about it. One of my clubs got the announcement a few weeks ago. (West Coast, Region 4). Because this club meets monthly, it is on Wed. night's meeting agenda. The other club meets once a year -- not until December which is far too late after the fact. 

If your club meets quarterly or once a year, it won't be on your club's agenda for some time (pretty old news). 

How clubs react to the information (if they react at all) will be be up to whether or not the club got the letter and when their meetings are held. 

The letter has been posted on this thread. As individuals, we can throw up our hands, we can post comments on this public forum, we can ask questions here ... we don't count. 

The 157 clubs who pay dues to the MNRC have to react to the 2010 loss and ask for a detailed financial report. 

The 157 clubs are responsible for questioning how their Officers and Board members are managing the Master National Retriever Club and spending the money. 

Problem is (with the exception of the past president of 2010 who called the shots for the 2010 Master National ) the 2010 Officers and Board members are the same folks in office this year. They just moved up a notch on the management ladder. 

The "what are you doing about this so it doesn't happen in 2011" question has to be asked of the very same folks who were in office in 2010.


Helen


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Shouldn't effect JH or SH.


It might for dogs that are being run there because their handler is running master, pros or folks with multiple dogs, for example.



Hunt'EmUp said:


> But then again, in my experience a clubs usually loses money on the master test; it's the more expensive test, and has less entries.


Around here, the Master typically has the most entries, even if you double the Junior and Senior. This time of year a Master will have say 100-150 dogs, followed by Junior with two stakes of around 40-50 (say 80-100 for the weekend) and then Senior with two stakes of say 30 (60 for the weekend).


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Very true. It is an unhealthy grip that the MNRC has upon members.


What's unhealthy about it? It is the price of admission. 

The 990 forms are available on line for all not for profits...including the MNRC. Look them up if you have questions about financial results. And if you have problems with the club communications or management, empower your delegates.

Otherwise you can just jump on the bandwagon because of a public forum that does not have a DA filter...


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

RF2;78828
The 990 forms are available on line for all not for profits...including the MNRC. Look them up if you have questions about financial results. [/QUOTE said:


> Allen, where did you find the MNRC's federal tax return online? Please direct me to it.
> 
> Helen


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/541/541634926/541634926_200812_990O.pdf


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Looks like they lost $21000 in 2006:

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/541/541634926/541634926_200612_990O.pdf


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Good sources. Guidestar is another source for info on not for profits.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

RF2 said:


> What's unhealthy about it? It is the price of admission.
> 
> The 990 forms are available on line for all not for profits...including the MNRC. Look them up if you have questions about financial results. And if you have problems with the club communications or management, empower your delegates.
> 
> Otherwise you can just jump on the bandwagon because of a public forum that does not have a DA filter...


Oldest hunt test club in Wa. One of the older ones in the nation. What percentage of our membership do you think attends MNRC on a yearly basis? 

What service does MNRC provide to the Majority of membership to each and every member club? It is very, very small yet, if you are not a MNRC club and a State away is holding a test that is, how do you think entries for master will be dispersed?


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

I think you answered your question. If being a member of the MNRC attracts 2 additional Master entries, you have covered the dues payment. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

RF2 said:


> I think you answered your question. If being a member of the MNRC attracts 2 additional Master entries, you have covered the dues payment. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.


Its necessary obviously- can't argue that. But, as a "member" we also get to have opinion, ask questions and make requests- basic AKC bylaws -


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

A quick look at the 2007 tax return: 

$ 122,283 event income
- 117,373 event expenses (compared to $111,714 when held in California in 2006). Sort of erases the idea that having the master national in California costs more than other places.

$ 4,910 event profit

Unsold Merchandise not listed as an asset. How much was purchased in 2007 and sold is unknown. Ammunition is not listed as an asset. How much was purchased, not used, and stored for the 2008 event is not known. 

$18,800 is listed as the equipment asset (compared to $16,011 in 2006). They must have spent $2,789 for new equipment in 2007). 

$ 17,284 administration expenses in 2007.

Deficit for the year <- $1,641.>

Cash funds at the end of the year: $137,170.

Helen


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

helencalif said:


> $ 122,283 event income
> - 117,373 event expenses (compared to $111,714 when held in California in 2006). Sort of erases the idea that having the master national in California costs more that other places.


Same expenses with nearly 40% more entries in 2007 (327 in 2007 vs 239 in 2006). ;-)


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

RF2 said:


> I think you answered your question. If being a member of the MNRC attracts 2 additional Master entries, you have covered the dues payment. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.


This assumes the entry fee for the MN runners is all incremental income/profit, but in reality each entry carries a cost of around $58 per dog, AKC fees, land cost, judges expenses, bird cost, hired help, equipment maintenance and so on. This is the reality of what it takes to put on an event. You are now looking to cover the MN membership cost is to draw in 4-5 MN candidates. In our club, less than 3% of the members go on to run the MN. Makes you start to think of the benefit and cost aspect.


----------



## Art Stoner (Nov 18, 2007)

Joe Brakke said:


> This assumes the entry fee for the MN runners is all incremental income/profit, but in reality each entry carries a cost of around $58 per dog, AKC fees, land cost, judges expenses, bird cost, hired help, equipment maintenance and so on. This is the reality of what it takes to put on an event. You are now looking to cover the MN membership cost is to draw in 4-5 MN candidates. In our club, less than 3% of the members go on to run the MN. Makes you start to think of the benefit and cost aspect.


Joe

Fewer dogs entered because not a MN club would suggest that costs go up on an incremental basis per dog since the cost that you cited are fixed costs for the most part.

Also do not forget the pros that attend and are not a part of the club and are tyring to get their dogs qualified for the MN.

I also know of people who might go to the MN if their dog qualifies which can be a big if. Even if they do not go it is something that they wanted, i.e. to qualify for the MN. It is an achievement for sure!

Art


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> Same expenses with nearly 40% more entries in 2007 (327 in 2007 vs 239 in 2006). ;-)


Doug,
That's an increase of 88 entries which would mean higher bird cost, ammo cost, and other costs. A higher entry would not mean higher Judges expenses. 

88 more entries also explains the increase in entry income.

Do you know what the entry fees were in 2006 and 2007 so a better comparison can be made?

Thanks,
Helen


----------



## Doug Shade (Jan 10, 2006)

Last night I read some of the postings regarding the Master National Retriever Club loosing $40,000 at the 2010 event. I came away feeling very frustrated and sometimes angry at those of you who feel it is OK to form conclusions without having any facts to base them on. 

I’m sure most of you don’t care one way or another regarding my thoughts on the situation. I too received the letter stating the loss and the suggested price increases beginning this year. Apparently, I must have under-reacted at the news based on what many of you are saying. 

When I finished the letter I did not feel the need to accuse any one individual or the board itself of any wrong doings or of improprieties. I didn’t jump to any conclusions that based on what I had read an immediate audit was called for. I didn’t see any need to call for a board meeting of our local retriever club to hash out what needed to be done nor to listen to others speculate what must have happened. Had I any real interest in what everyone’s opinion was I would have purchased a copy of the National Enquirer to see what several of you little paparazzi had to say about the sudden corruption that exists in the Master National club.

Here’s what I did do. I thought about all the extra expenses that went with doing a 3 way split. These include and are not limited to equipment purchases and the expenses that go with having 2 extra judges. I thought about how the board had voted to keep the entry fees at $250 for the second straight year. I don’t recall a single person who entered the event saying it was a mistake not to raise the entry fee back up to $300. This alone amounted to over $16,000 in covering the losses. All in all I figured any and all information needed would be provided in the treasurer’s report. At that point in time if there were any questions at least they could be formatted with a degree of knowledge. 

I have been to every Master National since 1997. I have watched the club grow and evolve from the Good Old Boy club it once was to a club that has taken on the challenges and difficulties of hosting the mega event it has become based upon the interest many of you have in competing in it. I look at 2 huge positives that have occurred in the last year or so. As mentioned before, the first 3-way split occurred this past year. I was at the meeting from hell in Wisconsin in 2004 when anything other than a 2-way split with preferably no split at all was discussed until the proverbial Wisconsin cows came home. The other huge positive that has occurred is the AKC approving a Master National Hunter title to those dogs qualifying at 3 Master Nationals. I am sure that some of you injecting your thoughts in to these threads could care less about this title and would bash it in comparison to a FC title. I for one am very proud of those dogs who have competed successfully at this level and commend those individuals from the Master National club who worked with the AKC and made this title a reality.

I asked a friend of mine who is a better writer and certainly a better speaker than I am if he would help me in expressing my frustrations with what was said by many of you. I asked in particular if a reference to "casting the first stone" was appropriate. He came back with a better and deeper reply. "Knowledge is folly to wisdom."


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Well said Doug.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Doug,

There certainly were some rude comments and I can only agree with the progress made by the club recognizing the dog work through the title.

I do ask if you feel the statement sent in the letter shouldn't be discussed in a forum like this? I don't think it should be taboo for anyone club member to inquire publicly about how a clubs money is spent. I would certainly encourage any member curious about our club to ask for our accounting reports. It is a positive way to encourage member participation and form deeper "ownership" of a club. Paul


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

While I agree with Doug that rude comments are uncalled for, i woudl point out that the spirit of the thread was to seek more knowledge of the facts of the situation. Transparency is prudent, when you have nothing to hide. By not informing member clubs of the reason for the loss in a transparent manner, the MN has left the reasons for the loss open to conjecture. These situations are normally a result of some mistake (budgeting) or some unexpected expense, not fraud. So, i agree it is rash to begin to imply anything is intentional. However, if MNC sends a letter informing clubs of a loss, then including an explanation of that loss is going to go along way to protect the MN's name and credibility. The burden of explanation is on the MNC. It woudl have been better for them to simply send a letter of information that club dues and entry fees were going to increase due to increasing cost and not provide information of the loss of 40K without supporting the basis of the loss..

A disclosure of the financials of the MN event would quell the escallation of conjecture by various parties online.


----------



## South Fork Labs (Apr 18, 2011)

Just my 2 cents, not sending a financial statement out with the letter after loosing that much money would raise my flags....Just saying


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

deadriver said:


> While I agree with Doug that rude comments are uncalled for, i woudl point out that the spirit of the thread was to seek more knowledge of the facts of the situation. Transparency is prudent, when you have nothing to hide.
> 
> By not informing member clubs of the reason for the loss in a transparent manner, the MN has left the reasons for the loss open to conjecture. name and credibility. The burden of explanation is on the MNC. It woudl have been better for them to simply send a letter of information that club dues and entry fees were going to increase due to increasing cost and not provide information of the loss of 40K without supporting the basis of the loss..
> 
> A disclosure of the financials of the MN event would quell the escalation of conjecture by various parties online.


Thank you, deadriver. You have nailed it. A detailed financial report on the 2010 master national should have accompanied the letter saying it lost $40,000. 

There was no mention in the letter of preparing a budget for the 2011 MN and no mention of efforts to run a tighter ship this year to prevent another loss. Raise entry fees and raise club dues was the only solution offered.

Helen


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Helen,

May have found where some of the $$ went. Per MNRC's newsletter, the MNRC paid AKC $20 ea. for all the dogs in the MNRC hall of fame so that AKC would grant them the MNH title. Also paid the $20. for all the dogs (20) who qualified for a third time at this years event. 

T. Mac


----------



## Joule Charney (Jul 25, 2008)

I just became aware of this particular thread. Ideally, it would be merged with the other RTF thread pertaining directly to the MNRC financial topic:

*Master National: no elections, hand picked ladder of ascendancy*

Please go to the above thread for more information.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

T. Mac said:


> Helen,
> 
> May have found where some of the $$ went. Per MNRC's newsletter, the MNRC paid AKC $20 ea. for all the dogs in the MNRC hall of fame so that AKC would grant them the MNH title. Also paid the $20. for all the dogs (20) who qualified for a third time at this years event.
> 
> T. Mac


I didn't intend the discussion to include issues outside of the letter sent out or how officers are seated. Those are items which I have no knowledge. This thread was not intended to make accusations or stir a proverbial pot. I do feel discussion of member clubs is healthy because this is a form of communication previously not accessible to past officers and member clubs. 

I can see the good of the MNRC especially, if the club is there doing what all responsible clubs do, serve the members. With that being said, no club can make all members happy 100% of the time. The key is a balance. A ship cannot sail without some weight in the keel, it cannot be fast without a fair sail, it cannot come to port without an anchor.


----------



## Joule Charney (Jul 25, 2008)

I want to make it clear that I am just trying to be informative. (It is not my intention to "make accusations" nor to "stir a proverbial pot.") It happened that I have been aware of the other thread for the past several days. Despite the title of that thread, it has been mostly about the financial aspect. Since I was able to find a copy of MNRC's 2009 Financial Report, I thought the readers of this thread would be interested to know it is available.

Joule


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> This thread was not intended to make accusations or stir a proverbial pot. I do feel discussion of member clubs is healthy because this is a form of communication previously not accessible to past officers and member clubs.


Paul,

I want to thank you for posting the thread because I also feel discussion of member clubs is healthy and that this public forum does serve as a convenient opportunity to communicate. 

Too often it has been said that the financial operations of the national clubs are somewhat secretive. I think the "how did that happen" questions on this thread regarding the $40,000 loss by the MNRC are appropriate -- especially since the income for the event was over $100,000 and the letter said another $40,000 was lost. 

I also think it is very appropriate for the member clubs to contact the Treasurer of the Master National Retriever Club right now to ask for a written financial report on the event that lost $40,000. 

Especially since the letter that went out stated that the Board had already voted to raise 2011 entry fees to $325 and that the Board was considering raising club dues from $50 to $75 or $100. to cover the $40,000. loss. 

While it won't break the clubs to pay $25 or $50 more for their annual dues, the clubs should have the financial report on the 2010 event in a timely fashion so they know how the $40,000 loss occurred. 

IMHO it is not right to lose $40,000 above and beyond the income taken in (over $100,000) and send out a letter saying, "We have raised the entry fees and are going to raise the club dues to make up for it."

The Officers and Board members of the MNRC have a fiduciary responsibility. 

Something went awry in 2010. Basically, the same Officers and Board members in 2010 are managing the 2011 master national. While there is a host club, they do not make the decisions, and they certainly do not have the authority to approve expenses. 

Helen


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Our Board of Directors reviewed and approved a drafted letter to be mailed to MNRC. The letter simply asked for an explaination of the reported $40,000 loss to help us understand the reasons behind the loss. I can only assume that if multiple clubs follow suit with a similar request it would be easier to produce a single statement and send it out to all clubs. 

Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Where are we in getting a report and holding the board responsible. Are they still flying around the country holding meetings? Another MN around the corner and still no idea where the money went.


/Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Where are we in getting a report and holding the board responsible. Are they still flying around the country holding meetings? Another MN around the corner and still no idea where the money went.
> 
> 
> /Paul



darn big elephant in this room! anybody see it besides us?-Paul


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

There is a response of sorts in the MN Newsletter starting on Page 11 here:

http://masternational.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/revised5_mnrc-newsletter-summer-2011.pdf


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Nice. The transparency is good. The management, not so good but dog people are notoriously bad with money...



/Paul


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I don't really have a dog in the fight but the graph in the report is the first I've ever seen that is displayed backwards. Is this significant?

Eric


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I am someone amazed that anyone would "budget for a loss" and not to at least break even. Oh well.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

GulfCoast said:


> I am someone amazed that anyone would "budget for a loss" and not to at least break even. Oh well.


I'm not. I found the explanation quite reasonable. They make money in 2 regions and lose money in 2 regions, but in order to serve the entire country they still hold the event in the 2 money losing regions. They appear to have a long term outlook that the events in the 2 profitable regions will at the very least subsidize the events in the non-profitable regions.

It is not unheard of for big businesses to plan for (budget) losses in certain areas and/or for certain activities.


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Nice. The transparency is good. The management, not so good but dog people are notoriously bad with money...
> 
> 
> 
> /Paul


They wouldn't be dog people if they had any common sense when it came to money....


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

savage25xtreme said:


> They wouldn't be dog people if they had any common sense when it came to money....


Unless they keep their books using cash accounting, it looks like they need some work on accrual accounting. From the explanations, it looked like they expensed to the 2010 event many amounts that should have been capitalized and charged, via depreciation, to all events during the useful life of the equipment. The explanations seem reasonable, though. If I was involved, I would worry about what looks like a bad trend of rising costs from 2008-2010. The jump from R3 to R4 in 2010 doesn't look bad when compared to the last time, but the jump from R2 to R3 is worrisome. If costs this year jump I would think they do not have a good handle on these.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

T. Mac said:


> Helen,
> 
> May have found where some of the $$ went. Per MNRC's newsletter, the MNRC paid AKC $20 ea. for all the dogs in the MNRC hall of fame so that AKC would grant them the MNH title. Also paid the $20. for all the dogs (20) who qualified for a third time at this years event.
> 
> T. Mac


T.Mac,

The expenses you cite do not appear as expenses for the 2010 master national. Thus, whatever was paid to AKC did not contribute to the over $40,000 the 2010 master national lost.

Whatever AKC was paid was probably listed under Administration expense. Those expenses would appear on the federal tax return for the tax year in which AKC was paid and they should also appear on the annual financial report prepared by the treasurer and distributed at the annual meeting. 

Do you know in which year AKC would have been paid these funds? 

They do not appear on the 2008 tax return nor do they appear as expenses paid by the MNRC on the balance sheet the treasurer prepared for 2009 and distributed at the annual MNRC meeting in 2010. I have not seen the 2009 federal tax return nor the 2010 tax return. 

Helen


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

savage25xtreme said:


> They wouldn't be dog people if they had any common sense when it came to money....


True dat!
 :razz:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

savage25xtreme said:


> They wouldn't be dog people if they had any common sense when it came to money....


Amen...

k g


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> Unless they keep their books using cash accounting, it looks like they need some work on accrual accounting. From the explanations, it looked like they expensed to the 2010 event many amounts that should have been capitalized and charged, via depreciation, to all events during the useful life of the equipment. The explanations seem reasonable, though. If I was involved, I would worry about what looks like a bad trend of rising costs from 2008-2010. The jump from R3 to R4 in 2010 doesn't look bad when compared to the last time, but the jump from R2 to R3 is worrisome. If costs this year jump I would think they do not have a good handle on these.


The MNRC uses accrual accounting. This appears at the top of the 2010 master national Profit & Loss Statement dated Feb. 14, 2011. 

The Board said in its July newsletter that new equipment purchases in 2010 and capitalizing same was one reason why the event lost over $40,000. In part, this statement is incorrect.

The cost of new equipment and capitalizing it appears nowhere on the Profit & Loss Statement for the 2010 master national. Other expense categories (without including new equipment purchases and capitalizing) came to the $40,762 loss on the P & L.

If, since the 2010 P & L was prepared last February, the Board has decided to charge the 2010 event for new equipment purchased in 2010 and its capitalizing, then there was a greater loss in 2010 than the $40,762 that was reported last March and also the figure that appeared as a loss on the February P & L Statement. For example, if $10,000 was spent on new equipment in 2010, then the 2010 master national lost over $50,000. 

Like the poster, I do not understand why major purchases like new equipment and the capitalizing of same would be expensed to one single event and not over the life of the equipment. 

I also don't understand why there are two entries on the 2009 Balance Sheet for the organization. Under OTHER ASSETS is listed:

Category 1100 - Test inventory, guns, wingers, etc. $ 2,638,.79 (value)
Category 1200 - Property & Equipment, hunt test 18,711.11 (value)

The 2008 federal tax return listed equipment as an asset with a value of $18,000, but the equipment had been fully depreciated by 2008. Was $2,638.79 spent in 2009 for new equipment? There is no explanation on the 2009 balance sheet and the purchase of new equipment in 2009 does not appear anywhere -- it's not in the Administrative expense section nor is it listed as an expense of the 2009 master national. 

***
Another reason given by the Board as to the huge loss was the cost of trailer repair, new tires, and relocating the trailer from TX to CA and then from CA to Kansas. The total was listed on the 2010 P & L was being $4,834.69. The entire total was expensed to the 2010 master national.

First, I feel that the cost of trailer repair and new tires should have been reported separately from the cost of relocating the trailer on the 2010 P & L Statement so clubs would know how much was spent on trailer repairs and tires and how much was spent to move the trailer from TX to CA, from CA to KS. 

Second, I do not understand why the repair and maintenance of an organization's asset (the trailer) would be charged to a single event. The trailer is used for every event. 
Why shouldn't repairs, maintenance, and tires be listed under Operating Expenses for the organization since it is the organization's asset? 

About trailer relocation expenses being charged to the 2010 master national.... 

I have compared the 2007 master national Profit & Loss, the 2009, and the 2010. I don't have a copy of 2008. 

Neither the 2007 nor the 2009 master nationals were charged the expense of moving the trailer around from one location to another. 

As far as I can tell, 2010 is the only time "trailer relocation" has ever been charged to an event's Profit & Loss Statement. 

If now the MNRC is going to charge relocation expenses to the upcoming event, then the master national in Region 1 to be held at the end of this month should be charged for moving the trailer from Kansas to Maryland and from Maryland to wherever it goes next in Region 2.

RE: TRAILER DEPRECIATION - sometimes expensed to a single event, sometimes not. 

In comparing the three Profit & Loss Statements (2007, 2009, 2010) I noticed there were a few inconsistencies. For example, in 2007 the event was charged -0- for trailer depreciation. 2009 was charged trailer depreciation of $640. 2010 was charged -0-. 

I don't know why trailer depreciation was expensed in 2009 to that year's master national, but not in other years. The trailer is still being depreciated and so is a $6,900. computer, but it has never been expensed to Administration. I don't understand why the difference in their accounting methodology. 

While depreciation effects the organization's net worth, it is not an actual cost so I don't understand why any asset depreciation would be charged in one year and not in another. 

If trailer depreciation is going to be expensed to an event, then the depreciation of the $6,900 computer has to be expensed as an annual cost of Administration, right?

Perhaps the new MNRC treasurer will figure this out and make the MNRC's accounting methods more consistent.

Helen


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Helen big parties and travel are what made this event the greatest in history. Celebrities have standards you know......


/Paul


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

This has been very interesting to follow along.

This year's event has 556 entries confirmed (as of 9/3) multiplied by $325 that gives them $181,200 to work with.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Just figure over 500 dogs entered the MN at $325 a dog. Everyone is required to volunteer to work. They sell items at the MN. And they never send out a profit and loss statement to it's member clubs. 

MN not good. You could be starting an epidemic of clubs not wanting to participate. You owe the membership a Profit and Loss Statement and a professional audit every few years. 

There is alot of money involved. The Officers of MN should demand and audit just to protect themselves. Remember Incorporating does not protect officers from criminal liability.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Lady Duck Hunter,
> 
> Are you using the same brand adding machine or calculator that the MNRC Treasurer uses? My adding machine says 556 x $325 is $180,700.
> 
> ...


LOL....Helen, I'm old _and blonde_ and I did the math without a calculator...Shame on me. LOL

Still quite a tidy sum to keep up with this year.


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

Helen,
Don't know why I clicked on this thread LOL, but I did read you multiplication of entry fees a few posts up. Does that include scratches, or no? Looks like 2010 had a difference of $750 between your figures and theirs. That would equal 3 scratches.

Like I said, don't have a clue and don't know why I opened this thread. But that was the first thing that came to mind.

Tim


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

helencalif said:


> I am still in shock over the number of entries. If out of the 556 entered so far, they can anticipate at least 500 actually running... how are they going to handle this?
> 
> Do they have the grounds and ponds to run 4 flights? Do they plan to go to 4 flights?
> 556 entries -- it's mind blowing.


Not sure what they plan to do to accomodate this large an entry. What ever they do, timing and time management will be the key.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Simple. What they always do. Elimination series or sharp pencils...


/Paul


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Tonight I saw they have 574 confirmed entries.....somebody else do the math this time.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Now Helen you do know if you continue to point out issues with the master national, the in crowd embedded in your local clubs won't ask you to judge and quite likely will emphasize that your dogs are at risk of not passing test their selected judges put on during the year. Thank goodness the master national has not effected the weekend test nor violatedbthe original intent of he hunt test movement.


/Paul


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Backwack old buddy I'm beginning to think that you have a medicine cabinet that you ain't sharing with yer buds.

Paranoid delusionary regards

Bubba


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Simple. What they always do. Elimination series or sharp pencils...
> 
> 
> /Paul


There is another way.....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Backwack old buddy I'm beginning to think that you have a medicine cabinet that you ain't sharing with yer buds.
> 
> Paranoid delusionary regards
> 
> Bubba


After recent behavior by my " friends" it's a solid theory.

/Paul


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Hmmmm.. 

I have a somewhat different method of handling stuff like that. I just get a whole bunch of beer and go over and have a nice long chat. That way if we aren't able to come to an agreement or at least an understanding then as a consolation I am one of the first on the scene of the asswhipping.

Nothing don't get solved by interwebs disputes regards

Bubba


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Hmmmm..
> 
> I have a somewhat different method of handling stuff like that. I just get a whole bunch of beer and go over and have a nice long chat. That way if we aren't able to come to an agreement or at least an understanding then as a consolation I am one of the first on the scene of the asswhipping.
> 
> ...


Bring lots of beer, the crazy talk gets better towards the bottom of the ice chest.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

For the Shoreline thread...

/Paul


----------

