You go girl!!!
PS: some folks need to slow down and carefully read peoples posts and try and have an open mind! Strong solutions come from strong debates........and remember ITS NOT PERSONAL!
So Connie, curious, how much should a pool charge a team for time. Currently neither age group team in C-U can even afford to use the U of I pools because they charge 50.00 an hour and the teams simply cannot afford that. That severely restricts where the teams can swim. (remember, Midwest prices are considerably less than West Coast).
And 500.00 fundraising fee, Wow! We debated if 100.00 was too much for our parents!
Originally posted by Conniekat8
Well, if you see no value to what the team offers, you may as well.
Where did I say there is no value in swimming with the team?
I think the coaching is excellent, the facilities are excellent and the work outs are well run. My point was that our program is priced competatively. I enjoy swimming with the team. What I take offense to is that you seem to think we are all complainers. And you've stated that on a public forum.
I think people should know that we have a great team and that everyone I have met is extremely freindly and positive about our team. I have yet to hear a single complaint from anyone on the team about the program or the fees. The lone exceptions are Connie's remarks infering that we are complainers. And that is simply not true. And I hope that no one formulates an opinion about our team or any masters program based on her comments.
Where did I say there is no value in swimming with the team?
So we're going to play semantics and word games. Okay, Kevin, let's play.
Where did I say you said that???
I said "If you think...." Different meaning then saying "You said..."
But, your saying that the deal at Nova's or UCI or at the City Parks and rec. facilities is looking like a much better deal was rather strong judgement on your part as to the value of what you're getting at Nadadores.
Seriously, if you are ashamed to be a nadadore, and think there's better value elsewhere, I strongly reccomend you jump on the opportunity to get a better value.
What I take offense to is that you seem to think we are all complainers. And you've stated that on a public forum.
Back to semantics and word games that you want to play.
Who are "we all" and when did I say that "we all" are complainers? Please show me where I said anything about complainers.
I think it's too bad that you appear to interpret my talking about marketing and economics of pool costs and running a team, and giving an example of my team's economics, as a statement about someone being a complainer, and take it personally, and take offense to it.
If I recall correctly, you're rather new to the team, and really don't have a very good understanding of the underlying economics. One example, just how many people VOLUNTEER their time and effort, not because they HAVE to, but because they want to - to make your experience on the team more pleasurable.
Sure, you can go to UCI, or to Nova... At UCI, the pool exists because of the university, not because Masters group is payng it's fair share.
Nova's case is pretty similar to Mission. Bulk of the cost is paid for by the kids team.
So, you tell me, You're all offended when I say that masters aren't paying their fair share... Why shouldn't all the swim parents be offended that you get to swimm at less then half price then their kids swim???
What's so special about you and the masters that they get to swim more workouts for half the cost???
I mean, other than most coaches and teams being afraid that masters swimmers just wouldn't be willing to pay for their fair share, and discount their prices so the masters programs would exist in the first place.
Then some people wonder why there isn't more connection between Masters and USA swimming.
Tell ya what, if I was a swim parent, Id be pretty pissed that masters get to pay half of what I pay for my kid, and they get to swim 2-3 per lane (at least on our team they do), while my kid swims 15 per lane, AND I have to Volunteer or my fees go up even more, while Masters don't have to volunteer.
You may not know this, but a question masters on our team often ask how come we don't get better workout times, why we can't get a few lanes during more of a prime time.
Guess what, those who pay their fairer share get the first pick.
I'm sorry you're all offended and see it all as me thinking you're a complainer. My point is that economically, something is very wrong with this picture!!!
I brought up the example of economics to in part answer Knelson's question about why we should bother to grow and popularize Masters swimming. Right now, if USA swimming didn't exist, the fees that masters are used to paying, and their numbers aren't enough to support the pools they want to swim in.
I don't care what they're used to paying, or what their neighbors pay. If masters wants to exist long term, this course of people paying for barely half of the value theure getting needs to be corrected. An organization can't expect to live off the back of another organization or group forever.
Then we wonder why pool operatoers are more interested in building waterslides... I bet a lot more people are willing to pay 10 bucks to play on the water slide for an hour or two then there are those willing to pay 10 bucks for a coached workout.
Originally posted by dorothyrde
A very accurate picture of age group swimming and the parents who support it!
Thaks, I thought so.
I think it's good for people who wonder if or why the masters should grow, and who think that they're paying their share etc... to step back and take a peak at the big picture.
Some things that I hear many masters want, more pools or more pool space, better coaching, more things offered by USMS etc...
I think their views and demands get little bit myopic.
The numbers in the organization and the exposure, recognition and economic willingness of the organization and it's members to pay their share in the pool economics don't support the demands that we are placing.
Not too long ago someone told me that Masters is the only one of the USAS sports that doesn't accept government funding, and that we want it to stay that way, and how we're all proud of it, and how other USAS sports are wondering how we're doing it...
At littrle closer examination I've come to a conclusion that the way we're doing it is by riding on the coattails of USA swimming, and probably other kid's aquatics programs.
Not exactly something I would personally want to be proud of.
We're not making it on our own. Contrary to what I've been told.
I get a lot more pride out of standing on my own two feet then I do out of manipulating numbers to make it look like I do, or relying on government and others to help me.
Originally posted by Conniekat8
Are you talking about USMS?
Um, gee, no I'm not, Connie. I do not work for USMS, and I believe you know that. I was talking about the Kentucky Geological Survey, my employer. Your broad stroke condemnation of government included me, and I was merely trying to point out that far from spending $8 on nails, we're actually pretty careful with spending the taxpayers' money, because guess what, we're taxpayers too.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you've said, but I think your arguments have gone far off topic and some are unfair.
Originally posted by MegSmath
OK Connie, you've lost me. If you don't want the government to be involved in running public pools, then why do you want USMS to accept government money? (And by the way, I've been involved with USMS since the late 80s, and this is the first I've heard about any possibility of USMS receiving government operating funds! I'm not sure your source is correct.)
I don't want USMS to recieve government money.
What bugs me is that we claim to stand on our own, but in an indirect way we do take advantage of the existance of government money.
So which is it? We want it or we don't want government help?
is it like this: We'll take it, as long as we don't do it openly and directly?
It's almost like trying to hide that there is reliance on assistance, and claiming that we exist on our own and pull our own weight.
I'm sure it's not intentional.
As someone who works for a quasi-government agency, I happen to believe it's our mission to help our fellow citizens, and not to make it easier for private business to make a profit.
Are you talking about USMS?
Well, some people want USMS to be the quasi-government agency, and others want it to be run more like a business.
Guess we (the USMS) will have to decide what they want to be.
I don't think we need to worry about private pool operators making too much profit.
What I'm hearing is that right now we are worrying about government and quasi government agencies closing down pools because they're too expensive to maintain.
Well, guess what, looks like even the government that some people think should help you thinks keeping the pools operational at government's expense is too much.
For example, something Kevin and a number of people here doesn't know about Mission Viejo Nadadores is that several years ago the City did sone to the effect of: stopped helping support it, turned it into a foundation, and made an ultimatum, it's either going to support itself, or it's closing down. The whole place relies on volunteers and swimmers fees for it's existance. Even the board of directors that runs it are volunteers. The only paid staff there are coaches. And trust me, They're not exactly profiting. Most are working for them 10-12/per hour. If I recall correctly, very few are full time employees. Most of them are allowed to work something like 39 hours, no overtime, no benefits, no paid vacations.
Is that fair????
Where are all the bleeding heart liberals when it comes to standing up for hard working people that dedicated their life to swimming??? Making sure there's enough money in swimming that the coaches can make a livable wage off their efforts. Especially the Masters Coaches.
But, nooo, we're all too concerned how to pay less money out of our pockets for recreation, god forbid that the people working to provide you the recreation actually made a half ways decent living.
Oh, I know, they have a job, we need to worry about them coaches making too much profit.
For example, you have a coach with a relevant Masters degree working for $15 an hour, accepting a job with no health insurance, insuficent to support a family off of, so he can dedicate himself to being a full time coach.
How many potential quality coaches do you think will be willing to take that kind of a financial hit so that we can swim???
Or do you think they should be a city employee?
I mean, it's great that you believe in government help, but the reality of the situation seems to be that the local governments have less and less desire to subsidize the pools.
Sure, lets subsidise the pools, and raise taxes to the level where the cities and school districts don't have to worry about the operating costs. Really, I don't care how you wanna do it, it's going to come out of your pocket directly or indirectly.
Personally, I don't trust the government to be very cost effective.
I trust a privately run organizations more, and if they are doing a terrific job and manage to make a profit at something that historically is struggling to just break even (like pools), I think they deserve it.
So, which direction does USMS want to take to contrubute in trying to remedy this situation? Lobby with government to change their mind or try to operate in a self supporting manner.
Worrying about someone making too much profit off of masters swimmers is rather far fetched at the moment. We need to worry about the pools that we want to have available to us just breaking even.
