An Anonymous Analysis
		11 November 2014

The following analysis was emailed to me as an anonymous contribution.  The writer seemed to feel that they would be in peril of losing their right to play at OMBC if they signed it.   It was not written by me.  ...  John Christman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There needs to be a change in how the OMBC is run. One of the biggest changes we need is in who owns the games run by the OMBC. In almost all other bridge clubs, the clubs own the game and run them for the benefit of the players, hiring an outside director to facilitate play.

WHO WINS?

1) The players!

The OMBC currently has one of the most expensive games in FL, despite having a lease agreement in which the annual rent is $1 per year and while the utility bill is largely reimbursed by the City of Orlando. This is due to the nonprofit status of the OMBC and the service it is intended to provide to Orlando senior citizens. The cost to the players, however, is disproportionately high so that some individual club owners can make a living on the back of this "nonprofit" organization.

Secondly, there is a conflict of interest when the director owns a game. Why would someone make a ruling that would upset one if their own customers? This could cost them money if the player doesn't return. This results in rules not getting enforced to avoid getting people upset and does not serve the players either trying to learn the proper rules of the game, nor does it serve those who expect the rules to be followed. There have been players accused of "zero tolerance" because of their frustration that the rules are not followed. Their frustration, and the frustration of those offended by this frustration are a direct result having owner/directors!

Thirdly, Bridge clubs across the country combine open games and NLM games, so that players in the open game earn more points, counting the NLM tables as part of their field. That the OMBC does not do this does a disservice to our players, as they are not playing on a level playing field against competitors for masterpoint races across the country. When the topic was broached at the beginning of the year that the two Saturday games be combined in this manner, the owner of the NLM game declined, even though there was no additional cost to him. Why? Because there was no benefit to him, and it might help another club owner. As a result, the Saturday open game is barely alive. Is this good for Orlando bridge?

Finally, and most importantly, the OMBC is a registered nonprofit designed to promote bridge and service bridge players!

2) The OMBC!

The OMBC could charge less per game and receive more money if they restructured "our" club to match that which is done across the country. As indicated above, the OMBC has successfully deferred most of our operating expense to the city. This club would be able to pay off its bondholders and reap the benefits of the games, and therefore not be at the mercy of a board which is profiting from outstanding bonds.

WHO LOSES?

1) Some Club Owners

While we have nothing against the club owners and hope they would be interested in directing games under the new proposed format, they do not always act in the best interest of the players or the OMBC. They can't be blamed for this, as they are trying to run businesses. However, the OMBC is not in business to facilitate business owners. It is designed to service bridge players.

Also, as the board recently proved, the club owners own nothing and can be terminated without cause, so what is their motivation for promoting bridge and larger games, if they can be taken away and given to someone else at the whim of the board?

2) Bondholders

While we appreciate that bondholders are currently necessary to fund the operation of the OMBC (because of the poor current structure), the rate that bondholders have been paid has been WAY above market rate for years. The rates of 6% and 8% are finally being reduced, but they are still above market.

It is no coincidence that the bondholders elect the majority of the board.

What can we do to make these changes happen?

(to be continued.)