| Course | WMBA 6050 Accounting for Management Decision Making |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Relevant-cost decision |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6050 Week 7
Decline the $24,000 Saturday, Offer the Monday: A Relevant-Cost Decision on a Corporate Tournament Buyout at a Golf Club, Showing Which Figures Were Counted, Which Were Set Aside and Why
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6050: Accounting for Management Decision Making
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Decline the $24,000 Saturday, Offer the Monday: A Relevant-Cost Decision on a Corporate Tournament Buyout at a Golf Club, Showing Which Figures Were Counted, Which Were Set Aside and Why
The Offer
A regional insurance company has asked Briar Hollow, the made-up public course in this term's case, to host its annual client tournament on a Saturday in mid-July. The offer is $24,000 for 144 players with a shotgun start at 8 a.m., carts for every player and a lunch buffet, with the course closed to the public until 2:30 p.m. The sales manager wants to accept: $24,000 is more than the course's average Saturday golf revenue before 2:30 p.m. The controller's report, which shows a full cost of $58 per round including allocated overhead and depreciation, suggests the tournament is profitable at about $167 per player.
Both arguments use the wrong figures. The analysis below keeps only figures that would be different if the club said yes.
Relevant Revenues and Costs
Only future amounts that would come out differently under the two choices belong in the comparison (Datar & Rajan, 2021). For this decision the alternatives are hosting the tournament or running a normal Saturday.
Table 1
Contribution From the Tournament Compared With a Normal July Saturday Morning
| Item | Tournament | Normal Saturday until 2:30 p.m. | |
|---|---|---|
| Golf revenue | $24,000 (includes lunch) | $19,680 (240 rounds at $82) | |
| Course variable costs at $14.65 per round | $2,110 (144 players) | $3,516 (240 rounds) | |
| Lunch food cost | $1,080 | None | |
| Banquet staff for lunch, 8 staff for 6 hours | $912 | None | |
| Extra marshals and scoring help | $400 | None | |
| Bar sales contribution | $1,512 | None | |
| Restaurant contribution from public golfers | None | $1,400 | |
| Contribution | $21,010 | $17,564 | |
Figures are composite estimates; the normal Saturday reflects last July's average before 2:30 p.m.
On these figures, the tournament adds about $3,450 of contribution compared with a normal Saturday morning.
Figures Set Aside, and Why
Several figures appear in the club's reports but do not belong in this decision.
Allocated overhead is excluded. The controller's full cost of $58 per round includes a share of insurance, property tax, administration and the general manager's salary. None of these changes if the tournament is held. Using them would understate the club's gain from any extra round and, in this case, would make the sales manager's argument look stronger by making a normal Saturday look less profitable than it is.
Depreciation on the irrigation system and the clubhouse is excluded. It reflects money already spent. Arkes and Blumer (1985) demonstrated, across several experiments, how money already spent keeps steering choices it should have no bearing on, and the controller's per-round figure invites exactly that mistake.
The superintendent's crew and the pro shop's full-time staff are excluded because they work the same hours either way. Only the extra marshals and scoring help are included.
Season pass revenue is excluded from the contribution table because passes have already been sold. But the pass holders themselves are not irrelevant, as the next section explains.
The Cost the Table Leaves Out
About 60 of the 240 golfers who play before 2:30 p.m. on a typical July Saturday are season pass holders. They have paid for access, and a closed Saturday in peak season is the kind of event pass holders remember at renewal time. Each pass sells for about $1,450. If only three of the displaced pass holders decline to renew, the club loses about $4,350 a year, more than the tournament's $3,450 gain. The risk cannot be measured precisely, but it is real and it falls entirely on the Saturday option.
A Better Alternative
The same tournament on a Monday changes the comparison sharply. A typical July Monday morning sees about 60 rounds at $52, so the displaced contribution is about $2,250 plus a small amount of restaurant spending. At the same price the Monday tournament would add about $18,500 of contribution and displace almost no pass holders, who rarely play Monday mornings. Even at a discounted price of $20,000, a Monday would add about $14,500.
Table 2
Saturday and Monday Options Compared
| Option | Price | Added contribution before pass holder risk | Pass holders displaced | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saturday, as offered | $24,000 | About $3,450 | About 60 | |
| Monday at the same price | $24,000 | About $18,500 | Few | |
| Monday at a discount | $20,000 | About $14,500 | Few | |
Composite estimates.
Recommendation
Decline the Saturday at $24,000 and offer the client any Monday in July or a Thursday afternoon start at $20,000. If the client insists on a Saturday, the price should be at least $28,000, which would cover the displaced contribution and give a reasonable margin against pass holder losses. Garrison et al. (2021) note that special-order decisions should consider the effect on regular customers as well as the order's own contribution, and here the regular customers are the deciding factor.
What the Client Might Say
The client may respond that a Monday tournament is less attractive to its guests, many of whom work Monday mornings. That is a fair objection, and it is why the counteroffer includes a Thursday afternoon start as well. A Thursday shotgun at 1 p.m., with the course closed to the public from noon to 6 p.m., would displace about 110 rounds at an average weekday afternoon rate of $58, a lost contribution of roughly $4,800. At $22,000, the club would add about $14,000 of contribution compared with a normal Thursday. If the client prefers Thursday, the club should accept that price, which still leaves it far better off than the Saturday offer, and it keeps every season pass holder's weekend untouched.
How the Analysis Could Be Wrong
Two assumptions deserve a check. The Saturday estimate uses last July's average, but a holiday weekend or a heat wave could lower public demand, making the tournament more attractive. And the client's spending at the bar may be higher than the $14 per player assumed, since corporate events often run open bars. If the client accepts a Monday, both assumptions can be tested at no risk, and the results will inform pricing for next year's outings.
References
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. V. (2021). Horngren's cost accounting: A managerial emphasis (17th ed.). Pearson.
Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2021). Managerial accounting (17th ed.). McGraw Hill.
The Walden WMBA 6050 Week 7 instructions
Decision case assignments near the end of a managerial accounting course ask students to accept or reject a specific alternative using relevant costs. Prompts usually require students to show which figures change between the alternatives, which were excluded and why. Instructors expect allocated overhead, depreciation and other sunk or unchanging costs to be identified and set aside explicitly, and they reward attention to costs that accounting reports do not show, such as effects on regular customers. Expect one or two tables in a decision paper of this kind. Considering a third option, rather than only accepting or rejecting the proposal as offered, often produces the most useful recommendation and shows the student is thinking like a manager rather than an auditor.
How this WMBA 6050 Week 7 example is built
The paper states the offer's terms and the two arguments for accepting it, then explains why both use the wrong figures. A relevant-cost section defines the concept with Datar and Rajan and presents a table comparing contribution from the tournament with a normal Saturday morning. A section lists excluded figures: allocated overhead, depreciation with Arkes and Blumer's research on sunk costs, fixed staff and already-sold season passes. A section adds the cost the table leaves out, the renewal risk among displaced pass holders. A Monday alternative is costed and compared in a second table. The recommendation declines the Saturday, proposes a Monday or a higher Saturday price and cites Garrison and colleagues on special orders and regular customers. A closing section names two assumptions that could be wrong. Margin comments flag the relevant-cost table and the exclusions.
Reading the WMBA 6050 Week 7 rubric
Graders reward a comparison built only from figures that differ between the alternatives. Naming each excluded figure with its reason carries significant weight, since the assignment is designed to test exactly that. Recognizing that allocated full costs distort the decision demonstrates understanding. Identifying a cost that accounting reports omit, such as the effect on regular customers, often distinguishes the strongest papers. Proposing and costing an alternative shows managerial judgment. Acknowledging which assumptions could change the answer shows honesty. Instructors also check arithmetic and consistency between tables and text. A clear recommendation with a price, and properly formatted APA references, complete the scoring for this week.
WMBA 6050 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
List the alternatives first, including at least one not in the original proposal. For each, write down every revenue and cost that would change, and only those. Then list the figures that appear in reports but do not change, and write a sentence explaining why each is excluded. Look for costs that no report shows, such as lost goodwill or displaced regular customers, and estimate them even roughly. Students commonly lose marks by using full cost per unit, by including depreciation or by ignoring effects on regular business. Another frequent gap is a yes-or-no answer when a counteroffer would serve better. Check your arithmetic against the tables. If you would like a custom sample decision case on a choice your organization faces, send us the figures.
Get a WMBA 6050 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the case, the prompt, and the rubric and a sample decision analysis returns within 24-48 hours, the first at no cost. Where a specific exhibit format is required, or a workbook is submitted beside the paper, mention it and both pieces arrive together, built to the same case data your classroom handed out.
More WMBA 6050 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6050 Week 1: Three Statements Post
- WMBA 6050 Week 2: Ratio Analysis Memo
- WMBA 6050 Week 3: Cost-Volume-Profit Workup
- WMBA 6050 Week 4: Operating and Cash Budget
- WMBA 6050 Week 5: Flexible Budget Variance Report
- WMBA 6050 Week 6: Golf Club Balanced Scorecard
- WMBA 6050 Week 8: Corrected Analysis and Reflection
- WMBA 6060 Week 7: Integrated Marketing Plan
- WMBA 6040 Week 7: Improvement Plan Draft
- WMBA 6030 Week 7: Rental Platform Proposal
- WMBA 6020 Week 7: Culture Change Proposal
WMBA 6050 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6050 Week 7 sample paper?
The full tournament buyout decision, with relevant costs and exclusions, appears below.
How much does the tournament add?
About $3,450 of contribution compared with a normal Saturday morning, before pass holder risk.
Which figures are excluded?
Allocated overhead, depreciation, fixed staff costs and already-sold season passes.
Why is the Saturday declined?
Displacing about 60 pass holders risks renewals worth more than the gain.
What does the paper recommend instead?
A Monday at $20,000, or at least $28,000 for a Saturday.