According to Jack (vice-chair), the con made a small amount, though they are still determining how much as they make sure they've accounted for the accounts payable.
At this past SMOFCon, Kent Bloom announced that the convention did not lose money and will therefore be able to pass along a small amount to its successors under the terms of the Pass-Along Funds program.
How would you define "small amount" in this context, Kevin? I was thrilled at the amount we passed on at SMOFcon and personally quite disappointed at the blase reaction people had to the donations.
I didn't write down the actual amounts, nor did we videotape the presentations like we did bidders later that evening, so I couldn't speak authoritatively about how much they were. As far as the reaction goes, well, maybe y'all ought to have put out a press release so more than just the people in that one room would know what happened. Has there been any formal announcement other than at SMOFCon? I would have been happy to link to an announcement if I knew of one.
If you want people to pay attention, sometimes you have to make a big deal about it. (Link goes to the ConJose photo gallery showing Tom Whitmore and me handing giant PAF checks to our successors.) Kent is sometimes so quiet about this stuff that hardly anyone notices.
So, since I still don't remember: How much PAF has D3 announced? I think it's great that D3 made sufficient money to pay its bills, pay traditional reimbursements, and still have money to pass along to its successors. I, too, have been somewhat puzzled by the "more than our money's worth" question.
"whether the con made money or gave us more than our money's worth"
I have nothing to do with the con (other than enjoying it), but can't it have done both? I mean, really...the whole point is that you can't afford that kind of event for just yourself.
I'm a corporation member, but i'll leave the balance statement to the treasurer. We budgeted conservatively because of the state of the economy (i.e. didn't count on too much coming in at the door) and did come out of the con able to pay all our bills and to pass along funds to future cons (which we did at SMOFcon). Once reimbursements are paid and all accounts closed there may be a bit more to pass along. Personally, I feel good that we were able to pass along as much as we received. Does that answer your question, Eva?
I'm still not entirely sure of the meaning of "whether the con made money or gave us more than our money's worth". Do you mean did we pay more for the con than we took in? If so, the answer is no, we did not.
I'm surprised you need context for "more than our money's worth" since you were in BaltoWash fandom in the mid-80s. Yes, if the con spent more on the con than it took in, I'd say we got more than our money's worth.
I'm of the opinion cons shouldn't be able to pass along ANY money: every cent the con takes in SHOULD be spent on the con, but I'm realistic enough to know just how unworkable that is. If Denver spent close to what it took in, that's an admirable effort, and you should be recognized for it.
I'm of the opinion cons shouldn't be able to pass along ANY money.... If all Worldcons were run by the same legal entity, there wouldn't be any need for pass-along funds, obviously. As you say, you recognize the practical reason why Worldcons, as a series of giant stand-alone one-shot conventions with huge uncertainty in their budget, have to budget so conservatively that they will almost always have a surplus. (Last deficit was 1990, as I recall.)
Comments 9
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you want people to pay attention, sometimes you have to make a big deal about it. (Link goes to the ConJose photo gallery showing Tom Whitmore and me handing giant PAF checks to our successors.) Kent is sometimes so quiet about this stuff that hardly anyone notices.
So, since I still don't remember: How much PAF has D3 announced? I think it's great that D3 made sufficient money to pay its bills, pay traditional reimbursements, and still have money to pass along to its successors. I, too, have been somewhat puzzled by the "more than our money's worth" question.
Reply
I have nothing to do with the con (other than enjoying it), but can't it have done both? I mean, really...the whole point is that you can't afford that kind of event for just yourself.
Reply
I'm still not entirely sure of the meaning of "whether the con made money or gave us more than our money's worth". Do you mean did we pay more for the con than we took in? If so, the answer is no, we did not.
Reply
I'm of the opinion cons shouldn't be able to pass along ANY money: every cent the con takes in SHOULD be spent on the con, but I'm realistic enough to know just how unworkable that is. If Denver spent close to what it took in, that's an admirable effort, and you should be recognized for it.
Reply
If all Worldcons were run by the same legal entity, there wouldn't be any need for pass-along funds, obviously. As you say, you recognize the practical reason why Worldcons, as a series of giant stand-alone one-shot conventions with huge uncertainty in their budget, have to budget so conservatively that they will almost always have a surplus. (Last deficit was 1990, as I recall.)
Reply
While you're at it, you could plan your retirement so that you die just as you're spending your last dollar. :)
Reply
Leave a comment