Membership and levy proposal

[peteT]

Going back to a suggestion from Scott a while back in this thread. Sorry for the length of the post, I've been thinking about it quite a lot...

The removal of core funding presents problems - that is true. However I think that it also has a benefit. (And just to make it clear I personally believe that we should fund British Orienteering to the level it currently is)

The funding of British Orienteering will now be by the clubs. People join an orienteering club, they don't specifically join the NGB. Some of that membership is currently paid to the NGB, clubs organise events and part of the profit is paid to the NGB as an event levy. Therefore it is the clubs that should have the decision about the level of funding and hence the amount of progress and development the NGB can do. Currently the membership are only indirectly involved in this decision – they are either on a club committee or have elected the committee members and can input into committee decisions.

So what changes now the clubs are fully funding the NGB? (Note I am ignoring the projects that receive Sport England funding which the NGB are running on behalf of the clubs)

Well things should become more democratic. The clubs (via the regions and directors) should be guiding the NGBs work and decisions. In my utopia if a member has an issue or a question it is brought to the attention of the club committee who either deal with the issue or question or push it up to the regional associations committee to deal with. The regional committee can deal with the item, asking other club committees for input on issues if needed to see if it is something that should be brought up at National level. If it is a National issue the region discusses it with their allocated Director. If it is an issue / idea then it may be appropriate to discuss between NGB / director / region / club what options there are before the Director asks for input / decisions from the other regions, who would then get the input from their clubs. If anyone is not happy with a decision or doesn’t want to go through the club they can always go to the region or a Director but it would carry much less weight.

To a certain extent this is already starting to happen. For example Mike Hamilton canvassing opinions from the clubs regarding the holding of major events. It is vitally important that the communication both from British Orienteering to the regions and clubs and from the clubs and regions to British Orienteering is improved. This is the only way British Orienteering can know if a comment / question / demand is from a minority or majority of their membership.

Looking at the funding. If clubs & regions decide that the level of funding means that we need to raise additional funds equivalent of say £10 Adult & £3 Child then the amount paid by the club would be determined by their membership. How the club pays this really ought to be down to them. Some or all could be from an increase in membership fees, some or all could be from event income. The key thing is that it is the clubs choice, they have different membership profiles, different aims, different geographic regions, demographics etc.

If I take SYO as an example. 242 members (149 Adults and 93 Juniors) so using the £12 / £6 increase we would owe £2160. Looking at our membership and plans we might decide that we will put £5 on both adult and junior membership (Juniors get a lot of free coaching) - £1210; the remaining £950 could come from: an increase on our level C,B and A events, or by an increase in the amount a non-member pays, or we could put on an extra event or by just using our reserves.

This proposal means the NGB is clearly funded by the clubs, it allows clubs to have direct control over how they raise the required levy and it will allow clubs (and individuals via the clubs) to be heard at NGB level far more effectively.

Unfortunately the AGM is only a few days away and there is only one question being asked – should we increase the membership fees? I believe this is the wrong question to the wrong group of people. Instead, the question should be to the clubs –

“Will you support an additional club levy to support British Orienteering based on the number of Adult and Junior club members from the previous year? The levy per adult member will be agreed by the clubs with British Orienteering by voting on a set of proposed funding levels with a clear indication of what that funding will provide”

If the clubs answer yes to this then
“The club levy for next year depends on the activities you expect British Orienteering to undertake. There are 3 proposals the following table (not included) lists the activities that British Orienteering will be able to carry out given the level of funding:
1. £6 Adult, £2 Junior – £66k this is the minimum level required to keep British Orienteering functioning, all non-essential activities will be stopped
2. £9 Adult, £3 Junior – £92k all essential activities maintained, additional functions are xyz.
3. £12 Adult, £4 Junior – £122k this will provide sufficient funds to fulfill all of our strategic objectives

If a question has to be asked of the membership I suggest it should be:
“Do you agree that the mater of raising additional funds for British Orienteering should be by a club levy based on Adult and Junior club membership. The levy per adult member will be agreed by the clubs with British Orienteering by voting on a set of proposed funding levels with a clear indication of what that funding will provide”

[Gross]

Pete T..... if you read Mike's stuff on the BOF site you'll relaise your thoughts are a non starter.... BOF is a LTD with members as it's 'shareholders'.... so it's the members & not the clubs that need to make decisions.... as I understand it.

Although your thoughts makes more sense.....

[maprun]

Pete T..... if you read Mike's stuff on the BOF site you'll relaise your thoughts are a non starter.... BOF is a LTD with members as it's 'shareholders'.... so it's the members & not the clubs that need to make decisions.... as I understand it.

Although your thoughts makes more sense.....

Paraphased, BOF Ltd articles (rules) only say, the company (BOF Ltd) recognises affiliated clubs, as recognised clubs that have paid their affiliate fee. Nothing else. Run by the the directors on behalf of the voting members, and none voting regions and clubs.

[peteT]

I don't have a problem with the way British Orienteering is set regarding voting members etc.

The main point I'm interested is that the clubs should be given the opportunity to decide how they are going to raise the money that is needed - lets say the affiliation fee is dependent on the number of members. The clubs will be directly impacted by the decision to fund the gap in income some will be OK with the proposal, others given the option would choose a different ratio of membership / event income.

[maprun]

An alternative to a different levy for level C events and above, would be a lower levy on say the first say 200 competitors and a higher levy on each competitors over 200, regardless of the event level. For example, £1.40 below 200 and £2.00 over. For 300 competitors the total levy would be £480 (200 x £1.40, plus 100 x £2.00, an average £1.60). The best attended events, would pay an higher average levy and arguably they are likely to be the most profitable for the club organising it.

Just need two levy rates and the higher levy starting at a competitor number that exempts most level D events. A £1.50 lower rate say, would raise around an extra £25k alone and the higher level would need to be set at an acceptable rate, hopefully filling the remaining funding gap left by the low rate and any income raised by membership fee increases (post amended after AGM).

[Spookster]

At the AGM, at the point we came to the proposals, I (on behalf of the Board as Proposer) withdrew Proposal 3 from the Agenda. It had become clear from correspondence received since publication of the AGM papers that the proposal had raised concerns with a significant proportion of members, clubs and associations, and that the Board needed to re-consider how to address the funding gap that will exist from 2017.

As a consequence, although a good discussion of key issues around membership fees and levies was held, no proposal was voted on, and hence an EGM will need to be called later in the year to set Membership fees and Levies for 2017 onwards.

We discussed the timing of the EGM. An early EGM (perhaps in June) would give less time to consult further with members, clubs and associations on one or more alternative proposals. Conversely, a later EGM (perhaps at the Club and Association conference in October), would give more time for consultation, but less time between the EGM and the beginning of 2017 at which event budgets and clubs/associations setting of their own membership fees would be affected by the EGM outcome. My view is that a later EGM is preferable, and I sensed that most agreed, to ensure that we get it right.

[iainwp]

Given the money is needed - which I don't want to debate in this post.

We need new members to the sport. We have families turning up all the time; they do their three events, start attending club night and then need to join. The cost of joining is a hurdle, and for these new people the benefits of this step are unsure ... they're not already embedded in the organisation, they don't know about the WOC etc and they don't follow the British team. But they do want to orienteer.

To me this hurdle has to be small. Put the membership fee at a suitably low level, noting the additional club and association membership fees. Note that this is the time you might buy a compass, whistle etc, but before you go for specific O shoes or a SI card etc ...

For frequent orienteers it's cheaper overall to have a high membership fee and low levy. For new ones it's better to have a low membership fee. The exact values matter less than the reasoning we use to arrive at the prices. Our events are low-cost compared to cross country or triathlons. Frequent orienteers will travel further, stay in hotels and the cost of actual orienteering is lower than the support costs.

So make the first year of membership half price? If their interest continues, then they'll be happy to pay a higher fee later.

New members are important otherwise we'll have no sport.

[awk]

I belong to two other national governing bodies, British Cycling and the FRA (OK the latter isn't strictly speaking the NGB, but it is to me). I join them independently of my club memberships, which I do completely separately. I can be a member of both NGBs without being a member of a club, and vice-versa. In fact, I'm a member of a cycling club, but not, currently, a running club, but I've at different times been a member of both, been a member of a running club and not a cycling club, and been a member of neither, whilst all the time having NGB membership.

So why don't we do the same? That way, the packages can be tailored much more precisely to the needs of those joining, without having to carry the burden of the other organisation's expenses or needs unnecessarily

[Paul Frost]

I think that there is quite a difference between cycling/running and orienteering.

As a recreational cyclist you may be willing to support the NGB for the greater good of cycling. But if you don't race you may not need the services that your local club offers, as you can cycle anywhere at anytime. I accept that you may want to join club rides etc. but you don't need to if you just want to go cycling. Similar situation for running.

But orienteers are totally dependant on a club to provide the structure to go orienteering. The NGB doesn't directly provide any of that structure, so you could easily think that the NGB is irrelevant to you taking part in orienteering in your local area.
Given a choice I suspect many orienteers would just join their club and not bother with the NGB or association.

The Triathlon NGB encourages you to join a club by offering a £4 discount (off £40) if you do belong to one, and you save on entry fees by being a member of the NGB (not a club).
Scottish Athletics is £32 or £18 if a member of a club.

I'm a triathlete (member of club & NGB), orienteer and a runner but it's never occurred to me to join Scottish Athletics, choosing to just pay the £2 extra when I enter a running race. I cycle a lot and do the odd sportive but haven't joined British Cycling, CTC or a local club. I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw from that.

[SeanC]

The NGB doesn't directly provide any of that structure, so you could easily think that the NGB is irrelevant to you taking part in orienteering in your local area.

Did you mean that Paul? I'm not sure if you did?

Though it illustrates a problem. Rephrasing

"The NGB provides part of the structure that supports events, but as it isn't very visible to the ordinary orienteer, the ordinary orienteer is sometimes not very keen to pay for it".

[Paul Frost]

When I said structure, I meant the mapping of the area in the first place, the timing equipment and the planners, organisers and controllers that actually put on events. As you said, the stuff that's visible to the participant.
Even the big events like the Scottish 6 Days, British Champs, JK etc. are put on by clubs using club equipment and personnel, not by the NGB.

[Gross]

Not much point in paying for the website.... no mention of the JK

[graeme]

The NGB doesn't directly provide any of that structure, so you could easily think that the NGB is irrelevant to you taking part in orienteering in your local area.

"The NGB provides part of the structure that supports events, but as it isn't very visible to the ordinary orienteer, the ordinary orienteer is sometimes not very keen to pay for it".

and remember, Paul has TWO NGBs, the one recognised by UK Sport (i.e. SOA) and the one recognised by IOF (i.e. BO). So local orienteers are doubly unkeen to pay for them.
Given that Scotland also hosts more IOF events than England, including all three UK WOCs, maybe we should just transfer the international responsibility north and let BO become a "Club of English Clubs". Then England could take its turn paying two sets of levies

[awk]

I think that there is quite a difference between cycling/running and orienteering.

Whether there is or there isn't, I don't see any reason not to separate the two out, and have completely different memberships. In every sport, the relationships will be different between what clubs provide, and what the NGBs provide. Doesn't mean that one can't/shouldn't have separate memberships.

And as far as I'm aware, people don't join British Cycling just for the greater good of cycling. I certainly didn't! They join it because BC provides a package people want. That, for the competitive, includes insurance and a competition licence. Something for BOF and clubs to think about.

[mykind]

I think that there is quite a difference between cycling/running and orienteering.

Whether there is or there isn't, I don't see any reason not to separate the two out, and have completely different memberships. In every sport, the relationships will be different between what clubs provide, and what the NGBs provide. Doesn't mean that one can't/shouldn't have separate memberships.

And as far as I'm aware, people don't join British Cycling just for the greater good of cycling. I certainly didn't! They join it because BC provides a package people want. That, for the competitive, includes insurance and a competition licence. Something for BOF and clubs to think about.

Sounds like a good idea to me.