Membership and levy proposal

[Paul Frost]

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.

I think you missed my point, if orienteers are given the choice of not joining the NGB and just joining a club many will. Then the NGB will have to get the same amount of money from a smaller number of people. With our very small membership size that's going to get expensive per head.
British Cycling has over 100,000 members and the membership cost is £42 year to get a provisional (limited) race licence and the liability insurance. It's £35 if you don't race.
I don't know how many of it's members pay £21 year for just Fan membership, with almost no real benefits, but can you imagine how many people would pay that just to be a fan of orienteering?

I fully agree that things need to change, but we need to understand how orienteering differs from most other sports before copying a solution.
I'm sure that whatever solution we come up with will increase the cost of orienteering for regular orienteers. It's current low cost expectation isn't sustainable without big subsidies from bodies like Sport England/Scotland etc. which are disappearing.
British Cycling charges £35 to provide what appears to be less than British Orienteering does, and it has over 100,000 members to spread the costs over.

[maprun]

With cycling you can't race without being a BCF member, very understandable given the mutual risks, with 4th category novices being close to Russian roulette over a whole season even on closed circuits. With local time trials you can compete (not racing) unattached, normally extra for none club members. Beyond club time trials there are restrictions on what you can wear, which meant I couldn't wear a skinsuit I'd bought with another club's colours on, a £65 plus mistake! Borrowed a plain set, you could wring it out when I returned it. The pressure to conform in cycling and spend money on club kit is just another difference between the sports.

Clubs pay a sizeable amount (hundreds) to affiliate to local race leagues and agree to organise at least one race annually. With my old club I'd say 20% at most raced, up to 35% did at least a time trial a year, including most of the road racers. Then there were club "runs" at the weekend, off road training rides, chain gangs mid week and twice monthly socials etc.

Our club membership (BCF far more if required) is currently £20, £33 for a family. If you don't compete you just get the satisfaction of being a member. Not a very attractive package until recently when some of the parents got into coaching and now they have one of the best 6 to 16 year old junior sections with weekly coaching and informal races.

Another unusual club was free "to join", seriously! You had to wear their kit on club runs and when you raced, motorists can spot you from 100m it is sooo bright. Effectively a shop, bike brand and free club. No change out of £100 if you went for the full kit. Less for end of season ranges for cheap skate orienteers.

[roadrunner]

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.

I couldn't comment on the cycling situation, but as far as running's concerned I would guess that very few support the NGB for the greater good of the sport. With road running, you have the choice of joining a club AND the NGB, and enjoying a £2 discount on most races, or joining neither; with track and field, it's now compulsory to join the NGB in order to compete (and the nature of those events means it's almost essential to join a club in any case).

The £2 discount on road races for being an affiliated runner certainly attracts people, but I think most join a club because of the training (and perhaps also social) activities it provides.

My experience with orienteering (and I'm talking about non-elites here) is that there's less enthusiasm for training and fewer social events; the nature of the sport makes socialising after events harder than in running as well.

[smf]

The point being is that the SOA's funding from SportScotland is based on membership numbers. So if a big increase to the British Orienteering membership fees put people off joining it will impact the SOA more. BO may be happy to lose members as long as they maintain or increase participation.

and now the SOA are doing just that by proposing a 42% increase in their fees.

[Freefall]

How is a £1 a 42% increase?

[maprun]

According to the Board conference call on 6 April, the EGM is likely to be held at the Club & Association Conference.

[Spookster]

Time to re-invigorate this thread.

There has been an ongoing consultation on membership fees and event levies. Here's an extract from Mike’s eNews – 2 September 2016, to bring you up to date.

Membership & Levy Fees 2017
The consultation with members is continuing and we would encourage you and your members to take part in the survey that remains open until next Friday, 9 September. It is short and will only take 2 minutes to complete – and we need your views to help the Board make decisions about the proposal to be put before members at the EGM in October.
Much was written and discussed prior to the 2016 AGM and is available on the website for those people wishing to refresh their thinking on this matter. An article summarising the situation to date and the options can be found here and a brief summary is provided with the survey.
We would really appreciate your views and ideas, the survey can be found here and should take only a few minutes to complete – it is short!
The discussions with association chairs have been completed and as anticipated polarised views have been received from some associations. Clubs and Associations are invited to make their views known directly to the Board by emailing your views to info@britishorienteering.org.uk.
Input so far is in favour of a ‘middle’ solution somewhere around the £7.50 senior membership and £1.75 levy but there are some wanting a lower membership/higher levy and others wanting a higher membership/lower levy. Clearly we are not going to be able to please everyone! Compromise is needed.
At the next Board meeting the input provided will be discussed and a proposal will be drafted for the EGM to be held in conjunction with the Club & Association Conference on Saturday 29 October 2016.
Many thanks for your help in resolving this matter and I hope that after such an extended consultation process, members will appreciate and respect the opinions of others and be able to agree acceptable compromise position.

[Tim]

What no comment on early indications of views on the "should we be saving money rather than asking for more" question.

[andypat]

Well that survey is completely arse about elbow!

1. How do you think we should raise the extra money we need?

2. DO you think we need extra money?

3. How else do you think we should raise the extra money we need?

My perception at present is that we are trying to have a rolls royce federation for a Morris Minor sport. BOF havent done anything to convince me why we need to raise £80k and not cut costs.

[SeanC]

Well, if we really had a Rolls Royce federation, then the survey would have no imperfections.

There is a slider in the questionnaire to say what percentage of the 80k we think should be raised by cutting costs, I thought that was a good idea.

Worth sharing this questionnaire link via club Facebook and email anyway

[Snail]

What is slightly disappointing is the absence of any justification for the need to raise the extra income. At a minimum this should be an explanation of what is considered the 'core' business that should be funded from within the sport. Then we could have a sensible debate on whether this is reasonable.

What sometimes seems to happen is that:
- funding bodies want to see specific headings / programmes in governing body plans;
- governing bodies understandably adapt their plans to maximise funding, adding items they would never have funded themselves;
- a few years later funding bodies cut back on available money;
- rather than cut programmes, governing bodies now decide that anything previously funded is now "core".
Whether that is happening with these proposals I have no idea!

If we agree on the 'core' activities then it seems to me that the question of how that money is raised is very much secondary.

However I can't see any logic in setting a desired membership : levy income ratio. I think the most logical approach would be to set the membership fee at the marginal cost of membership, i.e. just enough so that new senior / junior memberships don't cost more to administer than they bring in in income. But no higher than that, so that the majority of funding comes from levy / major events. This is the approach most likely to maximise membership, and also ensure that most funding comes from those who participate (and so benefit) most.

[andypat]

Snail - thats what I wanted to say but as a burnt out volunteer I couldnt find the words

[Mr D]

I opted to keep the membership fee the same. We struggle to get people to register with BOF in our club. People just dont want to pay the money.

In theory....with an increased levy, the more events i complete, the more i pay. However there comes a point where £8 becomes £10 for an event, and it no longer becomes "worth it" when you add on travel, charges for parking etc.

I suspect to gain more income, you probably need to keep BOF fee the same. Have lower prices to the bigger events, and attract more entries... i remember the 2014 BOC... lots of people on the colour coded, but not on the Championship courses...

PS... £30 for a BOC hoodie.....thats some mark-up and i buy them later in the year when they are realistically priced.

[maprun]

However I can't see any logic in setting a desired membership : levy income ratio. I think the most logical approach would be to set the membership fee at the marginal cost of membership, i.e. just enough so that new senior / junior memberships don't cost more to administer than they bring in in income. But no higher than that, so that the majority of funding comes from levy / major events. This is the approach most likely to maximise membership, and also ensure that most funding comes from those who participate (and so benefit) most.

Your argument ignores how being a member of BOF and almost certainly a member of a club (more income for the club) will effect their future activity in the sport, by attending events (more levy income), or getting involved with their club whether socially, competing or volunteering.

[Paul Frost]

However I can't see any logic in setting a desired membership : levy income ratio. I think the most logical approach would be to set the membership fee at the marginal cost of membership, i.e. just enough so that new senior / junior memberships don't cost more to administer than they bring in in income. But no higher than that, so that the majority of funding comes from levy / major events.

If that's logical then it would be even more logical to make membership free, then there would be no cost of collecting it, or chasing up renewals, in the first place.
This would also lead to an increasing membership level every year, as no one would ever leave, just new people adding to the total.
It would also solve the insurance 3 event limit, every entrant would be signed up as a member as part of their entry fee.