Charging for gear depreciation

Should we charge for depreciation and damage?

  • No, this is not a good idea
  • Maybe charge a deposit against breakages to everyone
  • A depreciation charge for all is a good idea
  • A depreciation charge for projects, a deposit for affilliates

0 voters

Do you think it would be a sensible idea to charge projects and/or affilliates for expected depreciation and damage on gear which is borrowed from the library?

This is separate from any hire fees, or deposit against breakage.

Since gear does depreciate and can get broken, the Gear Officer could set a $ value on depreciation based on expected damage and so on, wihch would be charged against the project (and listed in the accounts as depreciation on assets) or charged ot the affilliate.

Of course, affilliates in particular would not like this as they expect to get the gear for free. However should we be covered for damage? Maybe an affilliate should give a deposit against excessive damage?

It occurs to me that some items are more prone to damage than others, and some are more fragile or vulnerable.

Thoughts?

I disagree with this idea. Most projects tend to contribute gear to the gear library anyway, which balances out the wear and tear on the rest. Way I see it, we are constantly cycling through old gear with new gear. Most of the gear can be kept in good shape with a once-a-year maintenance which tends to happen anyway, and quite frankly, if we can get five-six years use out of a sword, then it’s served its purpose.

Besides, letting projects and affiliates use the gear library has a sense of good will about it. Good will is a positive, shiny thing, and definitely something we want to be handing out like candy.

The negative reprecussions of this move would far outweight the small financial gain.

Maybe too much to worry about - we should instead keep cycling gear, take depreciation as a given and also continue to build up and improve our library. Most projects appreciate that looking after the gear is in their best interests, but accidents happen too. I’ve heard Brian say that he “expects” to break a gun or two in every 2014 game and budgets accordingly.

I’m more worried about a case where a project/affilliate comes back after an even and have broken a lot of $ worth of gear. Should we take damage into account when budgeting the profitability of an event? It is true many games budgets include gear investment which balances out damage and depreciation though.

Also, since affilliates will never contribute extra gear to the library, any damage done to gear when on loan to them is a definite loss. Should there be a deposit to cover major damage (above normal wear and tear)? How about if an affilliate borrows some of our more valuable gear (trailer, generator, radios…) and returns it damaged?

At the moment, we dont worry much because all the affilliates are reliable (so any damage will be an unavoidable accident rather than misuse or carelessness) and events are investing in new gear. Should we put something in place with a view to the future?

Not a great idea in my opinion.
Will create another hurdle for games.
Depreciation is a scociety cost as a whole, and not something that should be passed on to each project or affiliate.

Gear and profits from projects return to the society, so projects certainly shouldn’t pay anything extra.

When the society borrowed a trailer from Auckland Sword & Shield for Mordavia: Endgame did we paid a hire fee? I can’t recall. I think we would have been happy to pay a small fee, but getting it free would have been an even greater demonstration of goodwill. Borrowing the trailer from them definitely generated goodwill towards them. Hiring an extra commercial trailor for Endgame (because we needed two) cost us $42/day, for comparison.

Speaking of which, has the society ever affiliated with AS&S? They’re not on the list of affiliates on our website. Now that we have two trailers between us we could lend them to each other for major gear hauls, cutting out paid hirage entirely. Now that’s mutual benefit.

I think that the conditions of lending of gear should be part of the “mutual exchange” agreed between the society and affiliates. So long as the affiliate is helping the society in some way (e.g. through advertising, discounts for society members, lending of gear, etc) then I think lending gear to affiliates, including major items, should be free to maximise goodwill. A “one big happy family” approach will be the most beneficial in the long run rather than affiliates nickel-and-diming each other all the time.

I agree that charging fees for larp-related gear use is problematic, and not desirable. Skirmish has lent gear to plenty of other larps, and sometimes gear is lost but it’s just not worth the hassle and badwill to attempt to charge for it.

One thing we could do is require gear to come back washed. That would be non-onerous, and useful in terms of keeping the gear in good repair.

So people aregenerally against charging for depreciation - this is not really all that important, as the purpose of the society can be seen to include absorbing depreciation costs.

But how about damage?

If AS&S lent us the trailer, and it was damaged in a collision, who would be liable? The society, the AS&S insurance, the driver?

Similarly, if we lend some good gear out to an affilliate, and they trash it, should we say ‘oh well thats par for the course’’ or should there have been some sort of deposit offerred?

Might be better to spell it out for sure before the actual situation crops up.

No point in charging a deposit for use by projects, of course :slight_smile:

I would have thought that depeciation was a normal part of the rental cost anyway.

I think people seem to be leaning towards not charging affiliates a rental fee at all, just lending gear to affiliates for free. It might be part of an exchange for things like member discounts on events, advertising, etc - stuff that promotes NZLARPS.

For example, someone going from Auckland to Hamilton for a big QW game could take the trailer and fill it up with costumes & props from the equipment library. There is a crazy amount of stuff, and some is good quality. For a smaller game, enough gear to lend could probably be fit in a car.

The purpose of NZLARPS is to support all larp, not just projects, and lending gear for no fee seems to support that goal. So long as it’s affordable (including when things go wrong like breakages or lost items), it seems like a good idea.

While not charging rental seems like a good idea to support larps, at some stage, someone will have to pay for maintaining gear.
This will include depreciation, damage, replacement etc.
It’d probably be a good idea to insure a gear trailer & at some stage someone will need to pay for that too.
My point is someone needs to pay & it seems reasonable to expect those that to benefit to contribute, either directly or indirectly.
Is there any other economical way? I say this because some larps (like QW) typically run at a loss or just break even, with charges barely covering equipments costs.

Projects running under NZLARPS pass any profit to NZLARPS. This gives the society a reasonably secure source of income. Being a project has benefits beyond free gear loans (for one thing it takes all financial risk away for the organisers) so I don’t think the society will ever lacking for projects.

EDIT: Almost no project running under NZLARPS has run at a loss, they usually run at around a 10%-30% profit. The society ensures that projects are carefully budgetted in a business-like manner to make that small profit. All the profit is put back into larp, so nobody is being ripped off.

The money from projects alone will cover the costs of depreciation, and in a worst case would eventually cover the total destruction of high-value items. The trailer is insured, it had to be to get the funding from the Lion Foundation for it. The other items are not nearly as expensive (in the hundreds rather than thousands of dollars) and while it would be unfortunate for the society if they were destroyed it wouldn’t be the end of the world. And the risk doesn’t seem huge. If the risk was considerable then items like the generator could perhaps be insured.

In addition, if affiliates who are borrowing gear also offer event discounts to society members then the society benefits financially indirectly in increased interest in membership. Which will in turn lead to increased interest in running larps as projects, the main source of income. It is also more likely to lead to reciprocal displays of goodwill like donations of equipment to the society. Which is where the society got much of the gear in the first place. It’s a share-and-share-alike philosophy.

The society can turn down borrowing requests if they seem too risky, for example from a hypothetical affiliate with a track record of losing or destroying valuable stuff without replacing it. But that would be a rare exception case I think.

In the big picture free equipment loans are affordable for the society, even for big items, and will benefit the whole larp community which is what the society is all about.

I think everyone understands that if we share and look after the toys in the sandbox, everyone gets to play with them. If some bully decides to break all the spades, then the next afternoon he comes to play, we just don’t let him near the spades again.

I’m also of the opinion that between the profits that projects pass onto nzLARPS and the equipment projects to make (for example, in addition to running at a $96 profit, St. Wolfgang’s also contributed about $300 worth of gear) I’ve seen members donate stuff too. The community that uses the equipment also tends to be the community that turns up at gear days to help look after the equipment.

I think there are two ways there can be enough damage done to equipment to be noticed: Freak accident, or wilfull maliciousness. It’s pretty easy to tell the difference, and as with the sandbox example above, malicious gear abusers will just be denied again.

The one I’m more worried about is the third possibility: reckless carelessness. Some of our gear is valuable, should we have a deposit charged to affilliates to cover this eventuality?

FWIW, I’m against charging for depreciation - this would just be accountancy beanshuffling for projects, and would effectively be rental charges for an affilliate (most of whom we already have an borrow-for-free agreement with). The worry is that the society is assuming all the responsibilty for any damage, no matter who causes it, or how.

The society has paid for these high-value items by saving up money from fees and project profits. If necessary it can repeat the process to replace them. It would be unfortunate, but not the end of the world. Unlike many individual larps, the society has very good cashflow.

I think it’s enough to ask borrowers to take good care of equipment, especially equipment that is harder to replace. For some borrowers, having to replace several hundred dollars worth of equipment would bankrupt them. Do we want that? Many wouldn’t have that sort of bond available either, which would prohibit them from borrowing it in the first place.

Good point that most borrowers could not afford a reasonable deposit in any case.

Maybe the society should then look into some sort of insurance for the more valuable items? Certainly we should have insurance for the trailer, although I think this is already in progress.

This also brings up the question of public liability insurance for the society, and whether or not we should have it.

Maybe for items worth $1000 or more. But at the moment that’s just the trailor. Smaller amounts are replaceable within a year or so.

In case a society larp damages non-participants? Seems like a slim risk, and I think ACC would cover it. Or do you mean in case we burn down a building or something? I think the insurance of the building should cover that. Can you give an example?

Yes, the trailer insurance and the wonderful ACC will cover most things, so any additional insurance would be minimal.

I’m thinking about the situations where a society game is being played, and damage is accidentally done to other property, or someone injured, and so on. What if we get sued by some litigiously-happy person claiming for being scared:)? LARP is a physical activity so it might be worth checking what other sports groups do with regard to this.

This is more an exercise in covering all eventualities that are not covered by ACC. It would be more essential for an organisation in the UK or USA where the ACC does not provide cover.

Its worth noting that on our accounts, the gear library is listed as an asset with the value of $5000 (Mikes estimate), not counting other assets like the printer and trailer. So it is worth considering possibilities like a fire destroying the gear, or similar.

Insurance may be too expensive to be worth considering though