Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Surely member should be getting the benefits of the Association while they are members and not subsidising future members? Then their is the question what is enough reserve funding? My experience is that the EXCO don’t have a cut off point on this and greed has the finally say! This year it is R20 million next year it will be 22 million to 25 million etc!!! But for this greed cycling is not moved froward at the speed it could be! To use an example of what I mean - when ever I buy a new house I spend initially all the money it take to make the house the way I want it before I move in - so I can enjoy all the benefits of the new house for as long as I stay there! Other may say move in pay off the bond and only once you done that, say 10 years latter, then improve the place the way you want it. I would argue you sacrificed 10 years and only been “half” happy when you could have been 100% happy for that time. Money will never be able to buy those 10 years of “half” happiness back!The money should have no limit to it. THe more money there is int he kitty, the more that can be devoted to upliftment etc. Let's say there wasn't ANY income from racing. Let's say that the 20m is in a conservative fund mix, returning on average 10% p/a after costs In order to keep up with inflation @ 6%, you need to strip that out of the return. So the net return over inflation is 4%. On R 20m that is R 800k per year. The next year, that will grow to R 848k, then R 899k and so on. All the time, the underlying investment (R 20m to start) is growing by inflation. THAT is why it's so important to ensure that the capital stays in place, and grows by or in excess of inflation. That's why DJR was saying that it is sound financial practice not to dig into the R20m every time they see something new. They need to have a look at their income, expenses and so on and endeavour to increase that R 20m as much as possible, as quickly as possible (but without undue risk of losing all of it) in order to secure funding for their entire operation. It's NOT greed. It's proper financial planning.
carbon29er Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 the wpca never agreed to sanction the racing group.And Jacob had no idea what was being built at his home? Despite what ALL the evidence shows. You keep running these li(n)es about WPCA never agreeing to sanction the racing groups. Maybe this is because Western Cape Cycling sanctioned the racing bunches, FACT. Who/what is WPCA? CSA withdrew this sanction in January 2015.
Icycling Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 The money should have no limit to it. THe more money there is int he kitty, the more that can be devoted to upliftment etc. Let's say there wasn't ANY income from racing. Let's say that the 20m is in a conservative fund mix, returning on average 10% p/a after costs In order to keep up with inflation @ 6%, you need to strip that out of the return. So the net return over inflation is 4%. On R 20m that is R 800k per year. The next year, that will grow to R 848k, then R 899k and so on. All the time, the underlying investment (R 20m to start) is growing by inflation. THAT is why it's so important to ensure that the capital stays in place, and grows by or in excess of inflation. That's why DJR was saying that it is sound financial practice not to dig into the R20m every time they see something new. They need to have a look at their income, expenses and so on and endeavour to increase that R 20m as much as possible, as quickly as possible (but without undue risk of losing all of it) in order to secure funding for their entire operation. It's NOT greed. It's proper financial planning. If this was a retirement plan I would agree with you totaly (kind of what I have done with my retirement plan) but it is not - it’s a non profit sports associassion! While this is happening you are basically “steeling” from the members the benefits that they could be receiving while been a member of the association. Basically I am saying the money should be devoted to upliftment etc. on an annual basis not when you think you have enough in the kitty - because that day will never come!!!
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 If this was a retirement plan I would agree with you totaly (kind of what I have done with my retirement plan) but it is not - it’s a non profit sports associassion! While this is happening you are basically “steeling” from the members the benefits that they could be receiving while been a member of the association. Basically I am saying the money should be devoted to upliftment etc. on an annual basis not when you think you have enough in the kitty - because that day will never come!!!No, it needs to be treated as a sort of retirement plan. Long term visions. Not flash in the pan stuff. YOu can spend on upliftment as long as it doesn't impact your future ability to spend on upliftment. Yes, budget for iit and spend - but don't spend to the point that your ability to spend int he future is impacted by poor short term decisions. Utilising the existing capital would be a poor short term decision. Utilising the income generated after expenses are covered would not be. Channeling any excess funds into the Unit Trust would ensure that there is a possibility of bigger, better sponsorships and upliftment projects in the future. It's exactly the same as a retirement plan. Same principle - ensuring the health of your capital and income flows, and trying to ensure that if anything were to happen to your primary sources of income, that there is enough capital to cover expenses for the forseeable future.
GLuvsMtb Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 If this was a retirement plan I would agree with you totaly (kind of what I have done with my retirement plan) but it is not - it’s a non profit sports associassion! While this is happening you are basically “steeling” from the members the benefits that they could be receiving while been a member of the association. Basically I am saying the money should be devoted to upliftment etc. on an annual basis not when you think you have enough in the kitty - because that day will never come!!!Your argument is like taking farms from productive farmers and giving it to guys who cant tell corn from wheat. Its like watching a car crash in slow motion, repeatedly. PPA is much more outcome driven than CSA when it comes to upliftment. CSA fails to be relevant for the bulk of the cycling community. Until they can put together a proper Tour of SA, SA Champs that actually mean anything (i.e. more than 10 people pitch to race) in all the main disciplines, provide support for our performing athletes and prove that they have the capacity to serve the cycling community, they will not enjoy the support of the majority of SA cyclists. If all was well with CSA, PPA may not have felt the need to have such a healthy reserve, but the reality is that CSA fail on so many levels that it is necessary to be conservative with reserves.
Thor Buttox Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 If this was a retirement plan I would agree with you totaly (kind of what I have done with my retirement plan) but it is not - it’s a non profit sports associassion! While this is happening you are basically “steeling” from the members the benefits that they could be receiving while been a member of the association. Basically I am saying the money should be devoted to upliftment etc. on an annual basis not when you think you have enough in the kitty - because that day will never come!!!I am the shades of grey on this one. I think PPA should state what capital is enough, and then should simple have a formula:Capital amount+ Income(memberships etc) - expenses+ investment income- Capital amount (year + 1 inflation adj) = Spend the difference. If the capital amount is growing by significantly more than inflation, I would think the mandate isn't being adhered to. My 2c
GoLefty!! Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Surely member should be getting the benefits of the Association while they are members and not subsidising future members? Then their is the question what is enough reserve funding? My experience is that the EXCO don’t have a cut off point on this and greed has the finally say! This year it is R20 million next year it will be 22 million to 25 million etc!!! But for this greed cycling is not moved froward at the speed it could be! To use an example of what I mean - when ever I buy a new house I spend initially all the money it take to make the house the way I want it before I move in - so I can enjoy all the benefits of the new house for as long as I stay there! Other may say move in pay off the bond and only once you done that, say 10 years latter, then improve the place the way you want it. I would argue you sacrificed 10 years and only been “half” happy when you could have been 100% happy for that time. Money will never be able to buy those 10 years of “half” happiness back! All you're illustrating is your way of decision making. Doesn't make it right or wrong since the circumstances that drives the decision to spend or not to spend depends on a lot of internal and external factors to the only truth is "it depends" Race snakes seem to have a beef against PPA for having money in the bank. Last I checked that wasn't a crime and the decision to have that moeny in the bank and to invest it in a Unit Trust was taken during my tenour on the EXCO and I recall the reasoning behind that decision. The vote was pretty strongly in favour of developing a nest egg to ensure sustainability of funding for ad hoc expenses like law suits (there was a case pending at the time that could have cost PPA millions which would have had to come from members .i.e members would have to foot a bill that they did not sign up for when joining). So not sure where your anger toward PPA is coming from cos I think I have far stronger personal reasons to want to see some people burn in hell but I can separate my personal feelings from what the organisation stands for and is intended to achieve. You seem hell bent on directing PPA toward racing when that is not its mandate. You didn't get your way because PPA was already too far over the fence as far as racing goes and as ar as I am concerned, where PPA is now is more in keeping with its mandate than it was during the "hay days" of fun rides. Its CSA's mandate to get the racing scene going and they seem to be focussed on Jo'burg more than Cape Town. Thats likely a political thing and not just a PPA vs CSA bun fight. CSA is funded by national treasury through Lotto and last I checked the western cape was the bastard child when it comes to national funding cos the western cape is still mos verkramp. So please save the PPA bashng for the operational issues that they don't seem to get right and NOT the strategic issues which are in place for very good reason. Just because there i s money there does not mean it has to be spent.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I am the shades of grey on this one. I think PPA should state what capital is enough, and then should simple have a formula:Capital amount+ Income(memberships etc) - expenses+ investment income- Capital amount (year + 1 inflation adj)= Spend the difference. If the capital amount is growing by significantly more than inflation, I would think the mandate isn't being adhered to. My 2cYes. But always build in a bit of fat for the kitty, so that your ability to spend on upliftment and such is increased on an annual basis and isn't constrained by inflation (horrible thing, that)
Skubarra Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I'm annoyed at how bad the communication is from CSA on this. At least 2 press releases to clarify without clarifying much at all. Only copy & pastes from the rulebook without even mentioning the Cycle tour by name. Just tell us what you are doing & why are you doing it, who will be affected and how.
Thor Buttox Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Yes. But always build in a bit of fat for the kitty, so that your ability to spend on upliftment and such is increased on an annual basis and isn't constrained by inflation (horrible thing, that)A really fat kitty is great in theory, a waste in practice, especially given the state of cycle safety at the moment. (just invest the 20bar in any decent foreign currency. At the rate we are going they will have billions)
Icycling Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I am off to ride now while my money works for me!!!! My retirement plan is just doing really well and I know when enough is enough and I know if I choose to want to make more money it’s not that difficult! Guys enjoy the day in the office.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I am off to ride now while my money works for me!!!! My retirement plan is just doing really well and I know when enough is enough and I know if I choose to want to make more money it’s not that difficult! Guys enjoy the day in the office.It's a really easy exercise for individuals. Work out how much you want per month, and then do the calcs based on X return and Y inflation. I'm working REALLY hard to be able to retire by 50. It'll take a shart-load of work, but not as much as you'd think. 18 years away...
Tubehunter Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Also struggling to understand how sound investment strategy for the long term is a bad thing... The rationale of cutting out all the money earned on interest for that alone over time makes very little sense... You could realistically end up spending the 20 bar over time just by using the additional interest income annually AND STILL have the nest egg, rather than commit financial suicide in the name of pleasing those looking to use most of the cash now! All this without having to raise any income from any other sources such as membership! But don't let this bit of fiscal sense stand in the way of a good argument eh....
Icycling Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 It's a really easy exercise for individuals. Work out how much you want per month, and then do the calcs based on X return and Y inflation. I'm working REALLY hard to be able to retire by 50. It'll take a shart-load of work, but not as much as you'd think. 18 years away... Good luck on the retirement plan by 50. I am 42 and have been more or less retired for a few years now. Yes I have some work every day (my passive income is worth far more) but you do need reason to wake up in the morning - and just riding is not going to cut it for me!!! Now time to get on the bike.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Good luck on the retirement plan by 50. I am 42 and have been more or less retired for a few years now. Yes I have some work every day (my passive income is worth far more) but you do need reason to wake up in the morning - and just riding is not going to cut it for me!!! Now time to get on the bike.Shot - and no, I could never fully retire. I'd drive myself mental!!! I'd have a select bunch of clients, maybe 50 to 100 or so and just look after them in the best way possible. Totally doable.
clivem Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Bottom line is: The sheer timing of this announcement smacks of bad intention.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.