Membership and levy proposal

[andypat]

It does indeed look quite comprehensive.
But tehre remain some parts of the complex relationship between SPortEngland, BOF and the wider British O community that I do not understand.

For example, a few years back our (Scottish) club was given a presentation by BOF, including an overview of Year in a Box. When we tried to buy Year in a Box, we were told we couldn't have it, because it was funded by Sport England.

But here is a paper saying its part of BOF core, therefore surely not funded by Sport England, and if its part of BOF core, shouldn't that then be available to all British clubs?

Its a small point maybe, but I think illustrates the disconnect that appears to exist between BOF and many orienteers in Scotland, with BOF asking us to pay an extra £1.50 or £1.70 to attend a £4 park O event in Glasgow on the one hand and providing us with an apparently lesser service on the other.

[maprun]

One would hope The Clubs & Association Conference will be used to formulate the development project(s) that BO will put forward to Sport England. A golden opportunity, with a good proportion of the development expertise within BO in one place. BO can say, we brought our clubs and associations together and used their views and expertise to guide us in our submission. Hopefully we will get grass roots development and retention ideas in this funding round, rather than top down ones.

[roadrunner]

For example, a few years back our (Scottish) club was given a presentation by BOF, including an overview of Year in a Box. When we tried to buy Year in a Box, we were told we couldn't have it, because it was funded by Sport England.

That does sound crazy. I can understand that they might have asked you to pay more, but not refused to sell it at all.

[maprun]

The Strategic Budget has been uploaded with assumptions. My copy has already been printed off, ready to be taken home and studied.

In Sport England's Investment Guide the following appears:
We believe that, in the medium to longterm, NGBs should be able to resource their back-office costs from their own revenue (e.g. membership and commercial income). Our aim, by 2021, is to reduce our back-office spending with each NGB to no more than 10% of our overall investment in NGBs. We will be working closely with UK Sport in this area, using the definition of back-office costs provided by them in their own investment guidance.

So SE acknowledge that the requirement for NGBs to change to fully self-financing their core activities, will cause initial problems, and they expect to contribute to NGBs in the short term to assist with this transition. Looking at the proposed budget and last audited accounts, BO are in this position when you look at the office overheads.

BO has budgeted £52k of expenditure in 2017 on office overheads. IMO this is excessive given the expected reduced staffing levels. The 2015 audited accounts indicate the annual rent is £28,339 and the lease expires sometime before 2020. Given that leases on buildings cannot be walked away from without financial penalties, it would seem reasonable for BO to ask SE to contribute fully to the excess costs BO will carry before it downsizes further. Puzzingly, both budgets show no proposal to downsize this side of 2026. Hopefully this is an oversight, especially as SE will be going through them with a fine tooth comb and BO members are being expected to finance them.

[andypat]

The GB elite squad/team appears to be emailing and active on social media asking members to vote for the proposal to avoid the likely outcome of funding being cut by BOF next year. something to think about for sure.

[aiming off]

Oh dear.

I disagree with the fundamental tenet that "Any government funding we receive, including funding from Sport England and Sport Northern Ireland, will be ring-fenced and not available for ‘core business", combined with Mike seeking to lump the TOTAL cost of overheads into "core business" in the strategic budget.

Any business seeks to recover it's overheads across the whole of it's turnover. So if, for example "member" activities provide £250,000 of turnover and government funded initiatives fund £250,000 of turnover, then only 50% of the overheads should be ascribed to the member activities.

Overheads at least include

National Office and Overheads £52,000, and a reasonable proportion of Salaries & Wages, £160,000, including the Chief Exec Salary. If these were to be fairly apportioned across future turnover, there would be no need for the increases in Membership Fees and Levies that are being sought.

Now if we were to use any additional member funding for maintaining a decent GB Elite Squad programme, that to me would be a FAR greater priority.

[maprun]

aiming off, BO should expect any future SE's grants, to include a fair and fully costed contribution towards the overheads incurred by BO of any additional staff delivering joint SE/BO projects. Otherwise BO members, will be paying higher fees and levies to cover these overhead costs. It's basic, full cost management accounting. The independent director(s) with accountancy expertise, should be advising the Board and MH accordingly.

[Spookster]

Any business seeks to recover it's overheads across the whole of it's turnover. So if, for example "member" activities provide £250,000 of turnover and government funded initiatives fund £250,000 of turnover, then only 50% of the overheads should be ascribed to the member activities.

Overheads at least include

National Office and Overheads £52,000, and a reasonable proportion of Salaries & Wages, £160,000, including the Chief Exec Salary. If these were to be fairly apportioned across future turnover, there would be no need for the increases in Membership Fees and Levies that are being sought.

In theory, yes, that would be a sensible way to allocate overheads, but SportEngland is not prepared to fund NGBs on that basis. Instead, they expect the NGB to fully fund overheads from their own turnover (i.e. to be fully self-sustaining). Then the SportEngland money is used only for the marginal extra costs of delivering the funded (ring-fenced) projects. We may not like that approach, but that's what it is.

[aiming off]

But running these additional Sport England programmes does require a greater head office overhead than is necessary without them.

Either these additional overheads are an eligible cost, or if as you suggest they are not, these programmes are loss making and you are asking the membership to cover that loss. Surely the members should not be asked to do this for elements of the SE programme that are "non-core" to the membership, such as Xplorer.

Bear in mind that the consequences of these increases will be fewer BOF members and less participation in the core elements of our sport.

[Gross]

Then the SportEngland money is used only for the marginal extra costs of delivering the funded (ring-fenced) projects

Ahhhh.... Scotland subsidising England yet again

[Spookster]

But running these additional Sport England programmes does require a greater head office overhead than is necessary without them.

In that case the funding application should ensure it makes that clear and gets those costs covered by the grant funding.

Bear in mind that the consequences of these increases will be fewer BOF members and less participation in the core elements of our sport.

No, that doesn't follow. For example five years ago senior membership of BO cost £20 (or £7.50 for local membership only), but levels of membership were not significantly different from today. Properly funding the NGB will allow it to promote and develop the sport, leading to greater participation, whereas cutting it to the bone may have the opposite effect.

[Spookster]

Then the SportEngland money is used only for the marginal extra costs of delivering the funded (ring-fenced) projects

Ahhhh.... Scotland subsidising England yet again

Er, no, the opposite.

SportEngland money funds projects in England. SportScotland money funds projects in Scotland. British Orienteering money (from members and participants in the whole of the UK) funds the NGB for the benefit of everyone in the UK.

[Spookster]

The point is that the government spending leveraged the profit, which I then spent as I wanted. I'm sure BritishOrienteering would have spent it differently. If they'd taken up my offer to run it in their name, they could have.

Thanks, I'm clearer now on the point you're making, and it's a good one. Grant funding "non core" projects that then make a surplus that can be applied to the benefit of the "core" of the sport is clearly a good approach.

[Gross]

Er, no, the opposite.

Er yes.....

Sport England funding will not contribute to basic HO costs if I understand correctly? These SE projects will be ring fenced.

HO costs will be self financing from membership etc etc.

So Scotland's contribution to HO costs will contribute to the operation / delivery of SE projects? Yes or No?

So Scotland subsidising England.....

[maprun]

Spookster, out of interest, does the Board consider the BO office is the correct size and cost, for the anticipated reduced staffing levels? If not, will they consider asking SE for funding to bridge the current additional costs, caused by past decisions made by the Board on the basis of continuing funding from SE?

The SE Investment guide states, "Finally, as we move to a new way of working, we recognise this will result in a transition for some of you and we are committed to supporting you through this period of change."