National League proposal

[awk]

Which would you like to sponsor?

Depends what they can afford, what fits into their marketing strategy, and whether you can attract those with the money. If we can get the bigger sponsors, then brilliant. But the FCC style concept obviously appeals, as has been seen elsewhere. DHL were sponsoring the Future Stars competition last night.

As I said, it's fairly obvious that I'm in a small minority here. If the arguments I put forward don't convince, then fine, we go with it. That's what I like about having a forum like this - you can test out ideas, and get robust feedback (sometimes called picking holes FATBB ). It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

Later point: I agree with you on that last posting completely Mharky (they might be boring for you, but I love them, but then I'm an old fogey!)

[mharky]

Thinking about organisers, some clubs obviously don't have the areas or manpower or both to put on 1000+ participant events. Having regions for them would certainly help spread the load.

[Mrs H]

I'm really surprised you are so luke warm about it Awk. I've been advocating this kind of set up for years. I hope the English Orienteering Council (and any other home nation to whom it proves convenient) jumps on the band wagon and uses some of the races for selection purposes as well. It certainly would have made our family life a bit more interesting in the past and everyone knows that leagues increase interest and pump up attendance.

If those who are interested can kill two or more birds with one stone then great. It's not compulsory after all and with fuel costs set to escalate even further in the next few years perhaps it means a few more painful choices will be averted.

[awk]

I'm not luke warm about the concept of leagues - far from it. What I am very luke warm about is putting all the age classes into one league series: I think that, yet again, we'll see loads of compromises, events chosen because the areas can take the numbers rather than quality, further overloading of the fixtures list and of clubs, with many other events suffering as a result, and a series dominated by conventional orienteering, whatever Mike H said in Focus. Just take a look at Mharky's last comment - they can always be put on by regions. The fact is that clubs/regions have enough on to deal with development issues without having yet more big national level races to organise which drain volunteer resources. Smaller, high quality national level races - yes definitely; more bigger ones, no.

Now I may well be proven wrong, indeed I really hope I am proven wrong; I love the idea of a national league (and I'm really looking forward to this year's UKMC), but we've seen this sort of thing at least twice before (the demise of championships, the demise of national events), and all that appears to be happening is that we're getting on that particular roundabout roundabout yet again. Not all change is new change, after all.

[SJC]

What I am very luke warm about is putting all the age classes into one league series:

Well it is going to happen whether you like it or not. From the minutes of the December Board meeting:

Board members discussed the issue with the current governance structure and particularly Events Committee. Members of committees and groups become lobbyists for own groups within the arena of Events Committee and can lose sight of what is best for orienteering as a sport.

So the various elected competition groups can say what they like, but the Board knows best.

Taking into account all the issues, it was agreed to suspend the review being conducted by the appointed consultant.

Not surprising as this was unlikely to come up with the result they wanted. Now it will be an inside review which will conclude that abolishing the various competition groups is the best way forward, thereby allowing the Board to push through any decisions they want.

[distracted]

So the various elected competition groups can say what they like, but the Board knows best.

Elected? Elected by whom? It's difficult to find enough volunteers to have full committees/groups in many cases...

The board, however, is elected - if you don't like what they're doing then vote someone else in!

[awk]

Board members discussed the issue with the current governance structure and particularly Events Committee. Members of committees and groups become lobbyists for own groups within the arena of Events Committee and can lose sight of what is best for orienteering as a sport.

Interesting coming from a board chaired by the ex-chair of Events Committee. Hope it's just a result of summarising for the minutes, because otherwise the impression is pretty dreadful.

It'll be interesting what happens if/when/as national funding starts to dry up. I don't think the board will be able to dictate to the rest of us quite as much as they appear to want to do now.

[Mrs H]

That looks very much like the sort of fall out from last year's 3/4 level debacle which I was predicting. But at the end of the day - whatever we as individuals might feel about the various issues - surely ultimately the majority of the membership will have it's way just as it did then.

[awk]

But at the end of the day - whatever we as individuals might feel about the various issues - surely ultimately the majority of the membership will have it's way just as it did then.

Let's a bit more precise - the majority of those who voted, which is not always the same thing. The majority of the membership expressed no interest at all. Not inusual with democratically organised bodies.

[LostAgain]

Let's a bit more precise - the majority of those who voted, which is not always the same thing. The majority of the membership expressed no interest at all. Not inusual with democratically organised bodies.

OR
There was a vote by those who were very vocal who put in a 4 tier system and the membership majority did not like it and overturned it

As you say, most of the membership are happy to let the vocal few play around with issues until it actually matters to them and then they may well turn out and vote. The vocal few should not then try to undermine them.

[awk]

OR
There was a vote by those who were very vocal who put in a 4 tier system and the membership majority did not like it and overturned it

As you say, most of the membership are happy to let the vocal few play around with issues until it actually matters to them and then they may well turn out and vote. The vocal few should not then try to undermine them.

If you take a look at the figures, you'll find that this is not an accurate reflection of what happened (assuming you mean 3-tier not 4-tier).
Accepting that a vocal group made the changes (that's pretty much always the case with any change), another vocal group didn't like it, and said so. A relatively small minority of the membership then voted on it, with a majority of them voting for the 4 tier system.
That's not an attempt to undermine them - I'm perfectly prepared to accept the decision as it was made in the totally appropriate way, but that doesn't change the true nature of the system. It would have been exactly the same if the figures had been reversed.