[Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation...

[John Miller]

Their projection of  $2,000 for Direct QSL revenue is unrealistically low.  

Total QSO count should easily hit 200,000, especially if the ClubLog Leaderboards are activated, as was the case for FT5ZM.

Even without a full accounting of UEE's finances for this trip, there is every reason to believe that NCDXF will see some refund from this DXpedition.

Looking at their updated budget and revised letter again -- and based on all points made thus far --

I would therefore vote for $35,000 for this DXpedition.

73,
John, K6MM




On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:17 AM, W6OTC wrote:

>       I agree with the following points made by Don:
> 
>       1.  QSL income (thanks to OQRS) has become more and more important to
> the "most wanted" DXpeditions and has increased substantially over the past
> 5 or so years, and US hams are the major donors to OQRS.  Whatever the need
> in EU/AS, those hams are not major contributors to DXpeditions.  QSOs for
> this operation will certainly equal at least 150,000; I personally expect
> 200,000.
>       2.  UEE finances are never transparent.  I don't know if he even
> gives his own team all the real numbers especially re income.  We need
> access to his raw data, particular the geographical distribution of OQRS
> income.  That has been half-promised in the past but never delivered.
> 
>       I don't agree entirely with the following points made by Don:
> 
>       1.  EU should give more, especially where the need is greater for
> them than for the US.  Yes, but the fact is they do not have a history or
> culture of giving and indeed there is a strong faction in Europe (centered
> in G-land and which we have discussed before) that thinks QSLs should be
> instant and free for all--a view that would destroy the economic basis for
> major DXpeditions.  The US does have a history and culture of private giving
> to support public good, hence tax deductions for charitable giving and the
> existence of the NCDXF.   I don't think our lesser contribution will produce
> a greater contribution from EU.  I do think that since we are the big dog in
> Foundation giving, we can and should be more assertive in conditioning our
> grants on more full disclosure of financial results of DXpeditions we fund,
> at least those above some significant grant level, perhaps $20,000.   But
> that is a separate discussion for full implementation (e.g. the application
> needs to be modified).
>       2.  This is a Caribbean DXpedition, instead of a Southern Ocean or
> the Pacific one so we should give less.  The specific location  is not
> controlling for me.  The issues are rarity, the cost of the DXpedition and
> the contribution/op.  If, as in the past, it was easy to get permission to
> land on KP1 and KP5, we wouldn't be dealing with a 15-man UEE DXpedition at
> all.  Many small groups would find more economic ways to go there
> frequently.  But since UEE is the only one to have gotten permission to
> reactivate these two entities (only once so far) we have to deal with him
> and the idea of rare and large DXpeditions instead of frequent and small
> DXpeditions.  To the list of likely future DXpetitions that Don lists, we
> now know from today's Daily DX that we can add Palmyra which will have
> similar problems.  I still say we deal with each application when it is
> made, rather than let potential future DXpeditions influence what we give
> now (whenever "now" is).  Some of the expected future ones may not
> materialize in the near future; others we don't yet know may appear.  But
> note that we have never developed a working philosophy of the amount of our
> assets we should spend/yr.  That is another issue for separate discussion.
> 
> 
>       So, at the moment, we have no stated opposition to the idea of making
> a grant, and we have before us a range of $30-40k.   Please comment and/or
> be ready to vote by tomorrow (Friday).  We need to make a decision on this
> application.
> 
>       73, Glenn, W6OTC
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Don
> Greenbaum
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:24 PM
> To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net
> Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and
> letter of explanation...
> 
> As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally
> misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it reflects
> that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the 
> QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity.   As 
> our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their income from 
> North America.   This is based on both club and foundation funding (NCDXF 
> is a major part of this portion of  fundraising) and US hams typically give 
> more donation $ with their OQRS requests.   The demand in Asia and Europe 
> far outstrips the demand in the US.   Why must the US finance the bulk of 
> this operation if the entity is not as rare here?  Even so, this group of
> 15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU.
> 
> From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken in
> around $70,000 in donations (95% North America).  We have given out so far
> $30,500.  In the next year, we have expeditions to the South Atlantic,
> Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific.  If we finance a
> Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what should the hard to
> get to places expect next year?  What can we afford to give the hard to
> reach destination DXpeditions.
> 
> This is a DXpedition in our back yard.   Fish and Wildlife specified a 
> Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter must
> make all the trips to the Island.  The helicopter transportation is not the
> cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest.  I am happy to see the team is
> putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised their 
> contributions to $10,000 each.   By the way, even at $10,000 their share of 
> the total costs is less than the total budget % than other 
> mega-expeditions.  It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition.   Just last 
> week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member here mentioned 
> the 2.5X rule for funding.   That would make our contribution on that 
> formula $25,000.
> 
> While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of 
> K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund.   However, we have 
> never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we have no idea if
> the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula.  Does our Foundation get back
> the same percentage as other Foundations, team members, etc.  This lack of
> transparency has always bothered some of the Board.
> 
> I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our
> analysis, they can always ask for more when they return.
> 
> Don
> N1DG
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> N1DG--Licensed since 1962
> EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4,  / KH9,
> /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7
> Webmaster:  VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP,
> WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI
> 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame
> Member:  NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC
> 
> AIM SKYPE:  aurumtel
> 
> 
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list
> Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list
> Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub