Membership and levy proposal

[Scott]

With all this talk of trying to make the levy fairer and dependant of the size of event etc. I'm puzzled as to why the option of charging a percentage of the entry fee has never been raised as an option?

Because the size of an entry fee has little correlation with the state of the event's finances? I've organised Level D events with a £3 entry fee and fewer than a hundred competitors that have made a comfortable profit - because the only costs were the levy and ~£20 of materials for the club printer - and I've organised Level B events with hundreds of competitors and >£10 entry fees that have made a small (anticipated) loss.

Admittedly this may be less true in Scotland, where I understand the Land Reform Act means that the landowner is less able to charge you several quid per competitor and/or a flat three-figure sum for access - probably the single biggest variable cost in event budgets in southern England, and often with no respect for the size of the event.

Scott, would you feel differently if the levy was lower, say 50p on the first 75 competitors, and the wording about events on the same area, on the same day tightened up? With a notional levy on the first 75 competitors, all clubs would have to pay a levy, on all their events.

I'd be more comfortable with that, certainly.

In an ideal world I'd probably support different levies for different levels of event, but I fear that all that would mean in practice is that most events move down a level from where they're currently registered.

[andypat]

The two current proposals are to increase the levy by either 25p or 45p per adult competitor. I'd be surprised if it had much of an impact on participation at any level if clubs chose to pass this on to competitors by increasing their adult entry fees by 25p/45p next year.

Yes but your already starting from a point that BOF levy comprises roughly 20-25% of the entry fee for local events. And when you start to think about taking the family along. From a personal perspective I have on several occasions made a decision to go myself and support a weekly local event but left the family behind. I can just about justify £5 for myself, but £16 or so for the family adds up especially if its a weekly series.

The flat rate is very unfair on smaller events, which are in effect are subsidising the larger ones, which is the wrong way around. Imagine if the income tax rate was a flat amount of X pounds regardless of income!

This is exactly my point! Its the local events that are going to get the brunt of this. Paul makes a good point about % levy, but unfortunately that's not on the table. The whole situation feels like a parallel to the US elections. How did we arrive at the point where we have to choose between these two options? There must be dozens of better options.

I dont know the mechanics of the EGM system but I'm guessing if the vote was NO, BOF would be working pretty hard to come back to us with a different option rather than just accepting the financial implications.

[Paul Frost]

Because the size of an entry fee has little correlation with the state of the event's finances? I've organised Level D events with a £3 entry fee and fewer than a hundred competitors that have made a comfortable profit - because the only costs were the levy and ~£20 of materials for the club printer - and I've organised Level B events with hundreds of competitors and >£10 entry fees that have made a small (anticipated) loss.

But the profit/loss of every event is in the clubs control, you shouldn't be making a loss on a level B event, it just means you priced the entry fee without regard to the actual costs. The comfortable profit from a £3 event is more likely to be because you didn't allocate the true costs to that event. Things like officials travel expenses, map updates, allowance towards the replacement costs of equipment etc.
The fact that the levy on your £3 event has effectively doubled the entry fee compared to increasing the level B fee by around 7.5% doesn't seem right or fair.

A big reason to move to percentage rather than differing flat rates based on level of event is to avoid the temptation for all events to be level D.

With regards clubs cheating by separating out parking fees to reduce entry fees.
I'm not sure that is cheating, as many events already charge for parking separately. I personally think it's a pain in the neck to charge at very large events, as it causes a bottleneck at the entry to the field which you can do without. But it does offer some incentive for car sharing (or use of public transport) if you charge per car.

[graeme]

By default I support the National Governing Body in providing core functionality. As far as funding is concerned, in Scotland SOA is the NGB, That's not the fault of BO or SOA, but it is the way it is, and so far as I can tell none of this extra levy will support our NGB. So it is disappointing but unsurprising that the letter below popped into everyone's email today.

British Orienteering proposal on increases to membership and levy fees: SOA advice to members

There is considerable uncertainty as to what impact these fee increases will have on orienteering clubs and orienteering itself. However, SOA’s response to this proposal must be from the standpoint that sportscotland invests in orienteering in Scotland through SOA, and this investment depends on continued participation and membership growth in our sport. It is sportscotland investment that allows SOA to support orienteering In Scotland across the full spectrum of activities, albeit by not as much as we would like in some cases. In this respect, relevant points for us are:

an increase in levy fee will make it more difficult for clubs to secure a small profit from their events to reinvest in their own activities for members;
similarly, a levy fee increase will make it more difficult to balance the budget of major events;
at a time when we should be making orienteering as accessible as possible to all sectors of society (something that is important to SOA in its role as a charity), increases in fees might be a disincentive to some people to participate and, importantly, become club members; orienteering is a relatively cheap sport in which to participate, especially locally, but as we tend to participate on a relatively frequent basis, this feature of our sport will be challenged by an increase in levy fee.

Therefore, after very careful consideration, the SOA Board advises members to vote Against the proposal, recognising at the same time that this decision has been a difficult one.

With best wishes,
Roger Scrutton
President, on behalf of the SOA Board of Directors

[maprun]

A big reason to move to percentage rather than differing flat rates based on level of event is to avoid the temptation for all events to be level D.

With regards clubs cheating by separating out parking fees to reduce entry fees.
I'm not sure that is cheating, as many events already charge for parking separately. I personally think it's a pain in the neck to charge at very large events, as it causes a bottleneck at the entry to the field which you can do without. But it does offer some incentive for car sharing (or use of public transport) if you charge per car.

In practice, parking is often the landowners land use charge. To be fair, BO would need to deduct all land use and parking charges from the levy calculation.

As mentioned in earlier posts, the high cost of fixed land use charges is causing major issues in the south. Some excellent areas used regularly in the past, are no longer viable for all but the largest events.

Unfortunately I doubt BO have reliable data available to put forward a levy proposal based on the total costs less current land/parking charges, which would provide a reliable projection of future income. They could of course revisit the percentage based on experience, except it might take two years to do so with the AGM in Easter.

[Scott]

But the profit/loss of every event is in the clubs control, you shouldn't be making a loss on a level B event, it just means you priced the entry fee without regard to the actual costs.

Why shouldn't we choose to make a loss on a Level B event? If it's a choice between making a small planned loss that we can cover from other income, or setting higher entry fees to cover the costs but having nobody turn up, I know which one I'll go for.

Of course clubs need to balance their budgets, but - unless the club has genuinely slim reserves - this should be done across a whole year (or more), and not on an event-by-event basis.

It should be up to each club to figure out from which income sources it wants to make its profits - big event entries, small event entries, membership fees, sponsorship - and which it wants to subsidise - big event entries, small event entries, relay entries, socials, training courses, club kit...

There's no right or wrong way to do it, just the way that works best for a particular club at a particular time. Lots of clubs will be making big profits on one or two Level B events and using these to subsidise their other activities, but lots of clubs won't, and it's not really fair to set a levy model that presumes one way or another.

The comfortable profit from a £3 event is more likely to be because you didn't allocate the true costs to that event. Things like officials travel expenses, map updates, allowance towards the replacement costs of equipment etc.

I think most of the Level D events I've been involved in in recent years have had zero travel expenses because the officials have either used their existing season tickets or cycled to the area. Orienteering in south-east England does occasionally have some small advantages

[Snail]

Am I alone amongst readers here in not apparently having had the email from British Orienteering giving notice of the EGM?

My email arrived this morning.

If I was feeling stroppy I would point out that an EGM on 29 October is now invalid.

Since the email headers suggest it was only been sent today, the 48 hours deemed delivery period together with the required 21 days required notice mean a valid EGM can't take place before 7 November! (And even that is assuming that everyone else has already been notified).

[Paul Frost]

Unfortunately I doubt BO have reliable data available to put forward a levy proposal based on the total costs less current land/parking charges, which would provide a reliable projection of future income. They could of course revisit the percentage based on experience, except it might take two years to do so with the AGM in Easter.

I'm not saying that parking charges should always be excluded specifically, It was in response to the suggestion that clubs may game the system by extracting things like parking from the the entry fee to reduce levy fees. If parking costs are not that significant per person (less than a pound) it's probably easier to include them as part of the entry fee, even if that means paying some levy on them rather than have the hassle of collecting it at the gate.

[Paul Frost]

Why shouldn't we choose to make a loss on a Level B event? If it's a choice between making a small planned loss that we can cover from other income, or setting higher entry fees to cover the costs but having nobody turn up, I know which one I'll go for.

I agree, but changing to a percentage based levy calculation wouldn't stop that. But the flat levy fee does make it harder for cheaper/smaller events to be as flexible because it is such a large portion of a low entry fee. Using a percentage just seems to offer a lot more flexibility in many ways compared to flat fees.

[daffdy]

I dont know the mechanics of the EGM system but I'm guessing if the vote was NO, BOF would be working pretty hard to come back to us with a different option rather than just accepting the financial implications.

I'm sure we would, but given that the EGM has come about after the proposal was withdrawn at the AGM, and we've been working hard over the summer to come back to members with a different option rather than just accepting the financial implications, how many more proposals would there have to be before you think we should accept that members who vote to have a much less useful British Orienteering do, in fact, want a much less useful British Orienteering?

[LostAgain]

how many more proposals would there have to be before you think we should accept that members who vote to have a much less useful British Orienteering do, in fact, want a much less useful British Orienteering?

This is very much open for debate, whether members actually believe British Orienteering (Federation) is useful in it's current structure/format?

Scotland would appear to be happy to adopt a very different model given the option. English members may also like something different if the option were available. The funding vote just being a very blunt instrument to get a message through?

[andypat]

Yes exactly Lost again!
I dont pretend to understand fully all the issues around funding - its clear that some people on here understand it better than me and still dont agree about it.

However there are some things that I can see we need to fund and also some that would be nice to fund, maybe through an increased membership fee.

However I am absolutely certain that we're not getting value for "33% of a local event fee going to BOF" 's worth out of BOF at the moment so I simply dont feel I can vote for either of the levy increase options.

In my view both fee increase options are the same and its clear BOF more or less feel the same since they feel able to add the votes both together against the NO vote.

[maprun]

The average BO senior fee at nine level D events today is less than £4 (4 x £3, 3 x £4, 2 x £5). A proposal to charge a £1.50 or a £1.70 levy on these local events appears to contradict BO's own constitution:

- to promote, administer and encourage the development of, and participation in the Sport within the Territory

The emphasis appears to be on administering the Sport, at the expense of the other objectives. For example, I'm not convinced BO should be paying £22k (audited accounts) to rent office space, when it is currently being advertised at £10 a square foot in the same building. I've not been there, but that appears to be a lot of space for maybe six budgeted staff. Edit: the figure for rent is less than £8k, see posts below.

As Snail pointed out in an earlier post, the membership has fallen over the last 25 years and the average age is increasing. The proposal put forwards is not addressing all the objectives.

Perhaps the Board should consider advertising for voluntary expenses only posts, for some of the functions of an NGB. I believe CTC, a much larger cycling membership organisation does so.

[daffdy]

The average BO senior fee at nine level D events today is less than £4 (4 x £3, 3 x £4, 2 x £5). A proposal to charge a £1.50 or a £1.70 levy on these local events appears to contradict BO's own constitution:

- to promote, administer and encourage the development of, and participation in the Sport within the Territory

Another argument would be - how can British Orienteering possibly promote, administer and encourage the development of and participation in orienteering if it doesn't have the funds required to do such things?

For example, I'm not convinced BO should be paying £22k (audited accounts) to rent office space, when it is currently being advertised at £10 a square foot in the same building. I've not been there, but that appears to be a lot of space for maybe six budgeted staff.

This isn't true (or the numbers you're quoting are very misleading). British Orienteering does not pay anything like £22k per year rent for office space. The current National Office is really good value - I recall hearing about some informal conversations about possibly combining premises with other NGBs to save costs, but realising that a move like that would actually increase ours.

Could you point to a source for the 22k figure, please? My guess would be that you're looking at the total amount of rent payable over the remainder of the signed lease agreement - i.e. total rent payable over several years.

Perhaps the Board should consider advertising for voluntary expenses only posts, for some of the functions of an NGB. I believe CTC, a much larger cycling membership organisation does so.

We do! There are a lot of examples of this, just look at the committees and steering groups page of the website. But there are also examples, with the best will in the world, of volunteers not being as motivated to do jobs as paid staff would be, and being more difficult to manage than paid staff would be. The fact is that many of the things that a NGB has to do are not very enjoyable things to do in your spare time!

how many more proposals would there have to be before you think we should accept that members who vote to have a much less useful British Orienteering do, in fact, want a much less useful British Orienteering?

This is very much open for debate, whether members actually believe British Orienteering (Federation) is useful in it's current structure/format?

Scotland would appear to be happy to adopt a very different model given the option. English members may also like something different if the option were available. The funding vote just being a very blunt instrument to get a message through?

That's a separate debate though - however useful or not you think British Orienteering is at the moment, I don't see how reducing its funding is going to make it any more useful?

[maprun]

For example, I'm not convinced BO should be paying £22k (audited accounts) to rent office space, when it is currently being advertised at £10 a square foot in the same building. I've not been there, but that appears to be a lot of space for maybe six budgeted staff.

This isn't true (or the numbers you're quoting are very misleading). British Orienteering does not pay anything like £22k per year rent for office space. The current National Office is really good value - I recall hearing about some informal conversations about possibly combining premises with other NGBs to save costs, but realising that a move like that would actually increase ours.

Could you point to a source for the 22k figure, please? My guess would be that you're looking at the total amount of rent payable over the remainder of the signed lease agreement - i.e. total rent payable over several years.

My apologies Daffy, you are right. On rereading the audited accounts, they state the total commitments not annual. Therefore, the annual rent is £7,764, which indicates the Board got a good deal suitable for the anticipated staffing level. I should know better! In my embarrassed defence (and no excuse), BO have adopted the new FRS disclosure requirements early, most companies are adopting them a year later. The previous accounting requirements, required the annual lease commitments to be disclosed.

Thanks for the reply. You have won over someone sitting on the fence!