"John Smith" wrote in message
. ..
Bill Daniels wrote:

If the tug costs the members big money then, since the members are the
club, it costs the club big money. It's financial shell game to say the
tug is a"break even" operation.

I don't get your logic. *Somebody* has to pay the tug. If it isn't the
pilot behind the tug, then it's the club as a whole. Do you advocate that
the non-flying pilots should subsidize the flying ones? Do you advocate
low tow rates subsidized by high club membership fees? Do you think high
membership fees would lead to a growth in club membership?

Of course it makes sense for individual members to pay for the services they
recieve. That's just the nuts and bolts of club finances. It's up to a
club membership to decide how they allocate costs and fees. Whatever they
choose, there's no right or wrong answer as long as it's legal and the
majority of the membership agrees. Having one activity subsidize another is
fine if the membership agrees.

But don't stop with the nuts and bolts, stand back and look at the big
picture the way a prospecitve new member looks at it. They ask, "What's it
going to cost me to fly gliders with this organization?" The cost of tows
is a big part of the answer. If the total cost is too high, they go another
direction. If that happens too often, the remaining members are burdened
with a bigger and bigger share of the cost of a tug.

I'm just saying look at it both ways and don't try to sweep the real costs
of operating a tug under the rug by saying, "Well, it pays for itself so
we're OK." If a smaller and smaller number of members are paying the cost,
you're not OK, you're in a financial death spiral.

A winch can be used to generate a substantial revenue stream while reducing
the individual members launch cost - a big win-win. That revenue stream can
be used to subsidize a tug. For sure, it won't work the other way around.

Bill Daniels