Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012

[SeanC]

RJ - so we agree that the orienteer who goes to lots of local events should contribute more?

[seabird]

I think Paul's spot on - hardly anyone will notice any difference.

Remember when we used to have a three level event system? Some vocal opposition got it changed to four levels, a lot of work had to be done to make this happen. It happened and very few people can spot any difference to what we had before.

Absolutely spot on. Rather a lot of hot air about something of little significance.

Rather like the whatever number of levels debate - just get on and make it work - rather than expend so much energy on grief.

[MIE]

In all of this it should be remembered that the British Champs (? all of them) and
the JK are not subject to a "levy". They are subject to a "profit share" arrangement
between the organising region and BOF. The budget, and hence the available "profit",
needs to be agreed with the BOF Treasurer.

So even if the Levy proposal is passed it will not affect the costs to enter those events.

[Red Adder]

seabird - I did not claim that my feelings were logical - they are an emotional response if anything - but I don't see that it makes them less valid, especially if the end result is still that I choose not put on so many events in future.

I am also not convinced that just because you put up events from £ 1- £ 2 with no loss of participation that you can be entirely confident that a further £ 1 increase will not be the tipping point. Every event has its maximum value - I happen to believe the pin-punching one man Cat D on marginal land may already have been reached at our events.

[Paul Frost]

Every event has its maximum value - I happen to believe the pin-punching one man Cat D on marginal land may already have been reached at our events.

I must admit that I hadn't realised pin punches were still in use. So when you describe an event like that I don't think I would be back again even if it was free

So although EckO charge £4 for an adult they do get SPORTident timing, pre-marked map on waterproof paper, web results, RouteGadget and proper TD5 terrain, and we've been doing that for over 5 years.

[Gross]

and proper TD5 terrain, and we've been doing that for over 5 years.

I'd guess the vast majority of UK clubs don't have easy & regular to TD5 terrain....

[SeanC]

If you're still using pin punches then you've got a great case for getting a grant from lottery etc for SI kit. I'd recommend the BOF development fund but unfortunately it's been rather too successful at attracting applications so I'd try outside of orienteering first. Our experience is that you can still run this as a one man band if you're using the training SI kit and it's easier in so many ways.

Attendance at Kent Orienteering League went up from about 60 average to 80 after we introduced SI a few years ago (plus pre-marked maps, rebranding and a new league).

(I'd still turn up and do O even with pin punches though )

[AndyC]

Pin Punches are useful when there is a low key event (maybe 20 people) and there is a significant risk of vandalism - I'd rather lose a punch and kite that have paid for themselves many times over than expensive SI boxes.
(we've been know to use SI for start and finish where we can keep an eye on them and pin punches where we can't)

[The Cumbrian]

What exactly is Alf subsidising Bob to do? The vast majority of the effort that Bob is enjoying the benefit of comes from the club not BOF. Whereas Alfs events will definitely have enjoyed the support that comes from the National structure.

Personally, I can't see that at all. In both cases, all of the direct effort in putting on the events will have come from the clubs. In fact, the BOF ranking list - and possibly the UK Masters Cup, although that costs BOF very little - are the only directly BOF-provided bits of "event support" I can think of that Alf is benefiting from and Bob isn't.

All the more intangible, less direct things that BOF provides using the membership and levy income - such as event insurance cover, or the online fixtures system, or the event rules and guidelines, or the support for event officials, or the national agreements with the Ordnance Survey and (assuming Bob is in England) the Forestry Commission, or support for clubs in preparing grant applications to purchase their SI/EMIT kit - will have benefited them both equally. There's a reasonable chance that the publicity fliers advertising his club's events that Bob picks up have been produced using a system subsidised by BOF, and Bob is rather more likely than Alf to have benefited from the existence of the coaching system, although that does depend a bit on the club.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to question whether BOF should be spending money on those things, but I struggle to see why people who tend to go to events with higher entry fees are getting more benefit from them.

Our Level D events (50/year) rely on/benefit from virtually nothing from BOF except it seesm from the insurance. They are staffed entirely by club volunteers, publicised through our website, run on club-funded/produced maps etc etc. Level B/C when Controllers are involved along with a higher degree of organisation and national publicity are far more reliant on the whole Federation network. Thus thats principally where the funding should come from.

[Paul Frost]

...rely on/benefit from virtually nothing from BOF except it seesm from the insurance. They are staffed entirely by club volunteers, publicised through our website, run on club-funded/produced maps etc etc.

Where did your coaches acquire the knowledge and resources to gain their qualifications?
Who collected the membership fees?
Who maintains the rules and guidelines that you run your events under?
Who negotiated the general access agreements in England with people like the Forestry?
Who begged and pleaded for funding from various bodies to reduce the cost to ordinary orienteers?

Whilst much of this work is done by volunteer committees and the board, the expenses to run those committees comes from central funds.

I'm not the biggest fan of everything done on our behalf, but I do recognise that we can't exist without some sort of central body looking after global matters.

[RJ]

Where did your coaches acquire the knowledge and resources to gain their qualifications?

The club/region paid the course fees involved.

Who collected the membership fees?

Our club had a very successful system of collection of fees, which was centralised in order for BOF to have access to the funds much earlier. They have created work for themselves. I would advocate that clubs could quite easily manage a web based system much the same as the fixtures info.

Who maintains the rules and guidelines that you run your events under?

Our level D events have their own rules and guidelines thank you very much!!

Who negotiated the general access agreements in England with people like the Forestry?

We have a local agreement with the NT and FC which works very well thank you very much.

Who begged and pleaded for funding from various bodies to reduce the cost to ordinary orienteers?

We negotiated two Awards for All grants of £5k ourselves which set up our school mapping project and highly successful school league.

Now, what BOF have been successful at is initiating Club Mark and Club Night programmes..... both of which have received special funding from Sport England (or some such)..... yea? BOF also provide general insurance cover which as an umbrella NGB is exactly what their role should be. All of the rules, guidelines, mapping standards start life in clubs with individuals and are eventually adopted by 'Groups' in the NGB. Evidence the electronic timing introduction. WCOC spearheaded the introduction of SI back in 1998/99, holding a sample event in mid summer on Dalegarth (BOC2012!!) at a Cumbrian Galoppen.

[Paul Frost]

So if you don't need or take anything from British Orienteering why belong to it, why doesn't the club leave and set up it's own independent orienteering group?

You say that the club/region paid the fees involved for their coaching qualifications, but who created the coaching structure that they paid to be qualified as?
The answer is the Coaching committee, who are volunteers, but they are paid expenses to attend meetings and training courses. They are also provided with support by office staff in Matlock.

I give in now, I can't be bothered to keep asking people to look further than their own self interest.

[awk]

I give in now, I can't be bothered to keep asking people to look further than their own self interest.

Well, you'll be please to hear then Paul, that whilst I was initially against the idea, I am now being persuaded by the arguments you and others have put forward here and elsewhere!

Whilst much of the discussion has focused on the levy (and I'm more and more convinced that the £1 increase for each senior/3 juniors is fairly easily absorbable in a variety of ways), I personally think that the change in the membership fee structure is in some ways more important, as it now places much more emphasis on the club element of the membership package, on what we offer and what we charge, which to my mind can only be a good thing. It's been said before, including in the proposals, but whatever one thinks of the levy, it's actually down to the club what is charged of each person - if we eventually decide that the £1 at Level D is too onerous, we can always decide to rebalance our entry fees to cross-subsidise. Of course we always could have in the past, but, overall, with the reduced membership fee we the clubs have more control in how the money is raised. I don't think we will need to rebalance as this change will help enable the gap between Level Ds and Level B/Cs to be reduced, which has been a cause for concern, but the option is there if we want it.

I know much of this has been said before - but I thought it worth reiterating, as these are the arguments which have worked on me. My one caveat is what we charge students; I would have liked to have seen BOF provide a national lead on this, but in practice whatever they said, what happens on the ground will still depend on club decisions.

[awk]

Who maintains the rules and guidelines that you run your events under?

Our level D events have their own rules and guidelines thank you very much!!

You mean you don't use any of the standard orienteering mapping or planning standards in your level D events? What standards are you controlling against? Of course, there's the insurance, as you acknowledge.

Even so, you don't have to charge £1 per senior levy at your level Ds. If, as you suggest, you think that level B and C events should bear the brunt, then you can always rebalance your event budgets so those events are where you raise the money to support your local orienteers and events.

[RJ]

awk..... The levy bit is important obviously, but it is only part of the problem. The membership element has been cheapened (not a good idea at all!) and the loss of income made up by creating new levy. As I have said several times now..... ALL of the participants who turn up to our level D events will eventually JOIN BOF. Raising money through membership to pay for the 'membership facilities' is important. Cheapening membership is counter-productive, because the whole ethos of the sport at club level depends on volunteering and a sense of belonging, staging the events for everyone else to participate in. Subscriptions (as currently priced) do not reduce the level of membership.

The weakness of the changes is that the regular, event planner member, who keeps the sport alive with volunteer input is now expected to pay significantly more through levy. Many in our club will have to find £30-£50 extra each year for NO improvement in their orienteering...... not fair!