BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: strikeordie on March 15, 2007, 12:21:01 AM
-
Is the sub expected to pay or should the person absent still pay?
-
Most teams just have the regular pay, not the sub. That makes end-of-season accounting simple.
I have been on teams where the sub pays, but that is usually when there is a rotation involved, and the sub will get in a lot of games, making for a more substantial cut of the end-of-season prize money.
--------------------
RW (THB)
-
Is the sub going to get any of the prize fund. If not then the regular bowler should pay. The regular bowler would have to pay if you use a blind so what is the diffrence he is just helping the team by geting a sub.
-
It can go both ways. I usually tell my guys that they are expected to pay weather they are there are not, because the that bowler will get the money from the prize fund and the sub will not get the money from the prize fund so in my view it is unfair for the sub to pay and then not be rewarded by the laegue at the end of the season.
--------------------
Mainzerpower
-
usually the regular bowler pays, not the sub. unless he is going to receive money at the end of the season. i have subbed for half a season but the regular paid, in the end , he got all the money. worked out great for me and him, i got to bowl in a classic league for free and he got a ton of money in the end plus i got to meet some guys and get on a team the following year. win-win.
-
For a true substitute (not rotating team members) the regular pays.
It is the regular is the bowler who signed up for the year.
If there wasn’t a sub there they would be responsible for the fee.
The regular pays.
-
quote:
For a true substitute (not rotating team members) the regular pays.
We've had additional roster members who don't pay, they're just subs exclusive to our team. There's no fixed rotation, they bowl when we need them to, but the regular team member pays. As others have said, it simplifies year-end accounting tremendously.
SH