Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012

[PhilJ]

Here in Wales we have a club fee, an association fee and an association levy, no problem with the club fee and association fee (though they are both more than the proposed BO fee), but an association levy on top of the proposed increased BO levy would hit Level D & C event entry fees which are 95% of what Wales holds.

[awk]

No doubt we are all moaning about the bankers and their bonuses and offshore tax havens and it's not right that the rich can avoid paying the taxes they should...
Yet some are already trying to work out scams so that they can avoid paying the taxes (sorry levy), that are required to manage our sport.
Before you start to moan about the increase in levy please remember that the reduction in membership fees has probably left money in your pocket to pay the increased entry fees.

This is nothing to do with the actual paying of 'taxes', but about who pays the taxes. Yes, you're right, it probably leaves money in my pocket to pay the increased entry fees, but that's not the point. Small events will be hit disproportionately. Some clubs put on a very high proportion of level D events compared to Cs and Bs, and whatever Clive and others suggest, making the money back on those bigger events may just not be viable, and indeed shouldn't be - we should be encouraging the small local event not discouraging it. Not only that, but those events are already hitting fees that are turning people off (I know we have started being very selective).
So, the fees at level Ds will probably have to go up. Who pays those? Mostly the newcomers and very local orienteers, the people we are trying to encourage. We regulars could even pay less.
And, in the meantime, BO want to get t rid of the student rates. Whatever the practical effects of this, the perceived effect is that, yet again, BO are removing support for the very population for whom they should be targetting support (and the issue of mature students who have lots of dosh benefiting is a non-issue - they are so small in number that it really doesn't matter).
It's late at night, and I'm probably missing a trick here, but the problem here is that it looks to me as if ithe biggest impact will be on those clubs who focus on local orienteering.

[Electrocuted]

The argument about cheaper membership leaving you with more money to spend on events won't go particularly far. Currently we have a family membership at £31 per year. This will go down to £10 for us both - no kids as yet but one on the way, but I certainly wouldn't bother joining a young child as a member.

So that leaves us £21 a year better off. Currently we do around 50 events a year, many of them local events at £2 or £3 entry fee. I can't imagine these events not passing on the increase in levy so even assuming all events are just increased by £1 this will cost us an additional £100 per year. Net benefit - £79 a year worse off.

Also, BOF say that they are not trying to increase income, but merely keep it at the same level. As individual members, I assume all mailings, including Focus would be sent to both of us. Before we were married, we had individual membership when we became a family membership BOF addressed mailings only to my other half - it was like I had disappeared!

I wonder how much extra money all these extra Focus magazines and postage would cost - surely every member would be entitled to an indivudal copy?

[kofols]

Here in Wales we have a club fee, an association fee and an association levy,...

Where can I find more info about your memberships and levy structure? I would appreciate to get more insight about your club membership model, what members get for membership fee and how entry fee is structured for local events.

In our case each club have different membership classes; normally (adults, juniors/students/pensioner, family discounts and free or very low membership fee for suport members and kids). Membership fee covers all entry fees for national events (league and championships - around 11 events) and normally the lowest entry fee for national events is around 7-10eur. Clubs normally give also free entry to its members for local events which are organized by same club and others pay around 2-5eur. Adults club membership is around 40eur and with competing at all natioanl events club pays around half or more of overall entry fees for their members from club funds. This model works only for clubs which can gain support from local community. I have interest to find out what are pros and cons of other membership and levy models and good practice. Thanks.

[SJC]

The argument about cheaper membership leaving you with more money to spend on events won't go particularly far. Currently we have a family membership at £31 per year. This will go down to £10 for us both - no kids as yet but one on the way, but I certainly wouldn't bother joining a young child as a member.

So that leaves us £21 a year better off. Currently we do around 50 events a year, many of them local events at £2 or £3 entry fee. I can't imagine these events not passing on the increase in levy so even assuming all events are just increased by £1 this will cost us an additional £100 per year. Net benefit - £79 a year worse off.

The proposed changes to fees and levy have been calculated on the basis of being 'budget neutral'

Clearly family members who go to lots of local events are going to be worse off, so who are the real winners in this game ? It seems to me it is current members who don't go to many events, in which case putting the entry fees up to cover the increased levy is hardly going to increase their participation.

[Paul Frost]

On the plus side, the cost of entering large events could go down by as much as £2 day, as the levy is currently £3.30 when you go over 210.

I guess one side effect of the proposed changes is that the gap between a local and big event will get smaller. So it might be easier to get those people that at the moment only go to smaller events to step up. If they have been used to paying £2 they probably think they are being ripped off by entry fees of £10 or more.

It also highlights how a few big events and their entrants are currently subsidising the cost of providing the infrastructure of our sport. Now if you think that's a positive thing then you probably don't like the proposals. If you think that the cost should be shared equally across all those benefiting from that infrastructure you will probably agree with them.

[madmike]

I guess one side effect of the proposed changes is that the gap between a local and big event will get smaller.

So should we change to 3 levels vice 4 then

[Clive Coles]

Who are the real winners in this game ? It seems to me it is current members who don't go to many events, in which case putting the entry fees up to cover the increased levy is hardly going to increase their participation

I guess this is true ~ but when ever does something that is effectively a tax on attendance actually encourage that participation.

I find this discussion about who wins predictable ~ we are probably all guilty of it. We do our sums and form a judgement.

But BOF needs to be funded somehow ~ a token membership fee is not going to go far. The lower it is the more likely people are to join especially if we continue to allow a BOF member £2 discount (or if you wish a non ~ BOF member surcharge) at events. That surely is the better news.

I don't in fact think participation is significantly influenced by just the cost of entry. We expect value for money but we are really a low cost sport in comparison with others. A more significant factor is the cost of travel and the other pressures of family and other social life. That is certainly the case as far as I am concerned.

I have long since stopped travelling out of region. It take me over an hour to get out of East Anglia. So geographical factors also play their part in the decision as to whether or not to attend an event.

The bulk of the BOF income will now need to be raised from participants at an event ~ the more you participate the more you contribute. Each time you turn up your contribution is the same as other attendees. That seems fair to me.

[greywolf]

The proposed changes to fees and levy have been calculated on the basis of being 'budget neutral'

which either means that someone at BOF has worked through all the consequences of the loss of family membership (e.g. not all current members will rejoin as individuals) and the impact that the change to a flat rate levy (and any subsequent changes of association levies, etc) might have on attendance and even on the types of events that clubs put on...OR they believe the demand for a thing is completely independent of its price...

[Nimby]

There's no mention of any deduction for paying by direct debit. I assume it won't be the existing £1 off a £5 fee.

[PhilJ]

kofols:

Where can I found more info about your memberships and levy structure?

All current membership details and association levy is on the WOA web page, club fees are on the SBOC club page.

As I say no problem in paying the club/assocation fee as we get alot from our club and association. Quick look back at 2010 and 2009 event numbers (not got the 2011 yet - AGM next week), but as a club we put on 42 events in 2010 incl 3 regional events = 39 level D and 3 level C and in 2010 41 events = 39 level D and 2 level C. There is no WOA levy per particpant for level D just a £6.00 flat levy per event for Level C the WOA levy is 50p/20p.

As like many clubs we have a vibrant summer league where we only see the occassional local orienteer for the period of 12 events, with a £1.30 levy per competitor entry fees will have to rise (we charge £3.00/£1.50) which may well mean we lose our occassional runners and thus reduce participation numbers - which also goes towards any grant funding WOA tries to get from Sport Wales (though this has dried up over the years as it not a main stream sport/Olympic sport).

[Mrs H]

I don't think there is any great mystery as to what BOF are trying to achieve here. The country has clearly embraced local orienteering as a great way to continue the sport in the face of spiralling traveling costs and BOF are seeing both their membership and levy income suffering as a result and want to redress that balance.

I think it is a bit of a shock to us because it seems to conflict with the encouraging messages BOF has sent out about local based events and community orienteering.

As to whether its the right approach depends on whether you think BOF is providing good value for money or not.

I cannot fathom why they would want to change student status. Again and again the students are having the rug pulled from under their feet. There are so many things that have been withdrawn from them that you could not do a better job of discouraging that sector if you were really trying, as for some mature students abusing the system - as AWK says, the number would be tiny and to be honest I very much doubt they are sitting a huge reserves of spare cash anyway.

[Adrian]

Simplification is all well and good but it's possible to go too far. My initial thoughts:

1. No levy on free events and activities.
2. £1.30 levy on small events is too high. £1 should be the maximum.
3. Keep Family membership.
4. Although the current membership fee is too high, £5 is too low. £10 or £12 would be a reasonable compromise. How about £12 full rate and £6 concessionary rate.

[EddieH]

Kofols, which country are you in?

Community funding is not somethingyou are likely to find much of in Britain, so all these competition subsidies can't exist here.

Some clubs subsidise members running in relays, and some club reduce or provide free entry fees to helpers. Where this happens the money basically comes out of event profits.

[kofols]

Kofols, which country are you in?

Slovenia

Community funding is not somethingyou are likely to find much of in Britain, so all these competition subsidies can't exist here.

Yes, I figured out. I've checked a few clubs webpages and no one has this under membership benefits. These benefits will for sure disappear or at least it will go down substantially because of the crisis. They’ve stayed in the club so far because tradeoff was good but most of them don’t practice orienteering very regularly. When we will lose community funds we could lose membership very fast.

I saw somewhere that non-members pay £2 more. Is this valid for all events / levels / age groups / foreign competitors? We don’t have this differentiation because cca. 90% of all orienteers are already members of the clubs. We will be probably forced to start using same approach as you but I like it anyway.

Where this happens the money basically comes out of event profits.

This is the major problem here. Clubs organize all non profitable local and national events just to keep orienteering alive. And two out of three profitable events went out of the clubs and are organized by private organizers. This was possible because vast majority of entrants (80-90%) on these large events are foreign competitors. How is this solved in Britain? Thanks.