I’ll be running a team tournament next month, which I did not guarentee any prizes.
I’m wondering what a rule of thumb is, also based with expenses, trophies and advertisements. Also how would I distribute them?
Anyone have any ideas?
Say we can base 32 total players at $80 per team = $640
Costs - Hotel $160
Trohpies $140
Advertisements $75
Seems like if you take that difference ($265) and take whatever prizes and divide them by 4, you’re looking at not that much.
You also have to find out the cost of the rating fee per-person and per-team – that would take away from any prize fund.
Forget the expenses…
Rule 32C4: “In all tournaments in which prizes are based on entries, if the actual turnout is smaller than the based-on turnout, prizes must be paid at least in proportion to the turnout. In addition, if the advertised prize fund is more than $500, at least 50% of advertised prizes must be paid.”
Of course, this is for based-on entries, as you suggested. So, before you advertise the based on, consider the expenses! (Not after…)
The TLA states “Prizes based on entries”, but does not say anything about any number of people or $ amount.
That’s where the question comes into play.
I’m assuming you’re talking about top board cash prizes.
In your example: 32 players will equal 8 teams @$80/team for an income of $640. Subtracting the expenses you listed ($375) leaves $265. If there are no other expenses (TD fees), and no profit (other than memberships) goes to ISCA, then you can divide and distribute the remainder of $265 to each board, which will equal $66.25.
You do have to consider rating fees, however, which should be around $14.80 (with crosstables).
To directly answer your question, you are not compelled by 32C4 to award any specific $$ amount, since you did not include a $$ amount in the TLA, which says: “Cash prizes based on number of players”. No $$ amount there, so no specific amount required. If you had said, in the TLA, for example $300 based on 40, then you would have to use 32C to determine your reduction. This is not the case here, however.