BOF CEO

[Scott]

I think the NGB is possibly in danger of not being able to fund operations within the year.

Having both seen last year's accounts and this year's budget (both of which should be published soon), I am satisfied that this is not the case. British Orienteering did make a loss in 2013, but it was relatively small, and the current level of reserves is very healthy indeed - comfortably in excess of the level specified in our reserves policy.

On the major-event-caterers issue, I think it is worth repeating that the income raised through the tendering process goes back into the event budget, where it is offset against event expenditure, income from entry fees, etc. The target income that British Orienteering is seeking from the major events hasn't changed, so the new tendering process doesn't equate to "more money for British Orienteering" - rather to "enhanced major events" or "entry fees lower than they would otherwise need to be".

[Paul Frost]

While I agree it would be nice, I don't really care whether Mike Hamilton turns up to orienteering events.
What I do care about is what he and the Board spend their time on. And my concern is that over the last few years, it's been less and less about "orienteering as members would describe it" (events, coaching, performance etc) and more and more about "orienteering as sport england sees it" (independent board directors, transgender policies, strategic plans, talent pathways, governance self assurance reports, terms of reference, etc).

Which may be because they don't spend enough time talking and listening to Joe/Jane Bloggs orienteer to find out what he/she wants and expects from orienteering.

The main focus seems to be on getting non-orienteers to go orienteering, even if that means making orienteering more attractive to non-orienteers is at the cost of making less attractive to existing orienteers.

I fear that the product at the end of this road we are travelling if we want to make orienteering more attractive by being at a fixed location, every week, facilities nearby, no experience/skill required, no complicated symbols to learn, no pre-entry required, very cheap or free already exists, and it's called Parkrun.

If that's what you want, go and do Parkrun, but if you want to commit a bit more time and effort, learn new skills, be challenged mentally as well as physically, and don't mind being regarded as a bit odd, take up the sport called orienteering that exists now.

[graeme]

If that's what you want, go and do Parkrun, but if you want

What RunChallenge and RandomlyCapitalizedOtherthing were meant to do was bridge the gap between Parkrun and Orienteering. Something with

fixed location, every week, facilities nearby, no experience/skill required, no complicated symbols to learn, no pre-entry required, very cheap or free involving a map

It would be entirely possible to do that in Edinburgh, meeting at (say) the Pleasance which lies in the centre of about 10sq km of ISSOM-map. It would require three people, one to set the course and map, one to meet, greet and time, and one to put out the controls. With the advent of Urban, I'm sure other places would be similar. Beyond that, it's all about marketing.

30-odd years ago, the British Squad set up an interval training session on the Meadows. Tuesdays, 7:55. It's still going. The key to its longevity (as with Parkrun) is that everyone knows where and when it will be.

[alanbrett]

My best guess is that BOF is actually feeling the financial pinch with the new fee structure and declining numbers and may be struggling to pay the wages and other bills so needs money quick.

From the December Board minutes re the Nov acccount:

Levy income is down on budget with a shortfall at the moment of almost £35,000.

...
The position of the membership, levy fees and club affiliation was discussed at some length and it was agreed that draft proposal(s) should be prepared for Board consideration in the February meeting. In particular the Board were in agreement that there should be no changes to the structure of the scheme proposed as the current scheme has not yet settled down but that consideration can be given to the raising of fees. Board members were very aware of the danger of leaving fees unchanged for a number of years, as this inevitably leads to a more significant increase at a later date; it may be more appropriate to have smaller but more frequent rises. BD and MH were asked to prepare suggestions for changes that the Board can consider.

A provisional agenda item in the items for the next meeting of:
Levy scheme review

Although the published Board Meeting Summary for March does not mention the item.

The levy shortfall is a significant percentage of Participation Levy Income in both the published 2012 and 2011 accounts (30% of 2012, 25% of 2011).

A participation levy increase seems certain.

[Scott]

As some people may have already heard, the Board are bringing a proposal to this year's AGM to increase the levy to £1.10 per senior run from 1 January 2015, while retaining the current flat levy structure, the three juniors count as one senior rule, and the current low membership fees.

Without wanting to duplicate the entirety of the supporting statement in the AGM booklet (your copy should be arriving any day now!), the reasons for the proposed increase are both the inevitable inflationary increase in costs and the fact that the levy isn't bringing in quite as much as we had anticipated when we moved to the current levy structure.

If you can remember back to 2012, when the new structure and the current £1 levy rate were agreed at the AGM, the Board said that we anticipated bringing in less income under the new levy structure than we were under the old - back then, if I recall correctly, we estimated that we would have needed to set the levy at £1.30 to maintain our 2011 level of levy income.

We said that we would try to compensate for this by reducing expenditure and increasing participation, and we have had some success in doing both those things, although it's true that we've seen more rapid growth in non-levyable "activity" participation than in "event" participation. For what it's worth, I think this is almost entirely down to an evolution in the way that many people choose to "go orienteering", and not down to clubs wilfully miscategorising "events" as "activities".

We also knew at the time that the change in levy structure made it difficult to forecast how much money we would bring in - among other factors, we didn't have comprehensive data for participation at Level D events - and in hindsight we perhaps got our estimates slightly wrong, although not by much.

[andypat]

I was against the flat levy for all events and would be against increasing it now. Our club in conjunction with another local one runs a short series of (currently events in 8 weeks in Spring. The price of these events is now increased to £4 per adult /£2.5 per child. If a family of 4 attends all of these events thats £100 over 2 months for orienteering of which around £21 is BOF tax. I dont think thats encouraging grass roots orienteering. Its hard enough finding money to attend the events you actually want to, let alone trying to support your club at low key events you maybe arent that enthusiastic about.

And then at the end of that period - the British Champs ££££.

[Spookster]

As for JROS and the Performance & Talent Squads then clearly there is no meeting of minds. The BO Talent Squad resistance to taking 18s to the Junior European Cup despite JROS offering to provide team management is but one example.

The non-inclusion of JEC in the 2014 programme has been reviewed, and that decision now amended. An updated selection policy schedule has been published. JEC has been recognised as a good opportunity for some developing athletes, and there will be a GBR team at JEC 2014.

[bewildered]

This is what it says on the BOF Website

The 2014 Talent and Performance programme released at the end of last year did not include the 2014 Junior European Cup to be held in Belgium on the 3-5 October 2014. The decision not to enter JEC 2014 was based on the timing of JEC 2014, concerns about ensuring athletes had a sufficient autumn/winter period for physical preparation unhindered by competition, and feedback from some athletes who had taken part last year.

A number of members, and in particular the Junior Regional Orienteering Squads, were disappointed about this and suggested that a GBR team could compete, to give aspiring juniors more experience of international competition.

The Talent and Performance staff have undertaken a review of JEC, including discussions with other nations taking part. The review suggested that there may be ways to compete at JEC which will provide opportunity for the structured development of some athletes whilst off-setting some of the challenges. Whilst the review noted the opportunities presented to some athletes by competing in JEC, it also noted the ways in which other nations avoided putting athletes into competitions that could hinder their short, medium and longer term development. Consequently the athletes invited to compete at JEC will be those athletes that are at a stage in their development where it is clear that competing will be beneficial to their development.

Funding remains a challenge, therefore JEC 2014 will be a competition tour where all costs will be met by the athlete.

This is then not clear as to who will be selected. This confusion is then compounded by the selection document itself which says that selection races include JK, EYOC and JWOC and that selection is on a case by case basis. This allows the Performance team to select anyone they like and not select anyone they dislike. It also makes it impossible for any athlete to know what they have to do to get selection.

Neither of these two issues allow for transparency, and do not meet the Purpose of the Policy:

The Policy is intended to:
Provide athletes with a clear understanding of what is required of them to merit selection.
Provide staff and volunteers working in the Programme a clear understanding of the procedures they must follow.
Provide objective criteria against which selections will be made.
Ensure that selection decisions are transparent and fair and that no selection decision should come as a surprise to an athlete.
Communicate the procedure for appeals against selection or de-selection decisions.

And it is nice to see that although Ed Nicholas is no longer with BOF he is still involved as a selection advisor.

[bewildered]

Further to my post about the JEC selection process.

If they are using JWOC and EYOC as selection criteria, that would appear to imply that the athletes at those events will be preferred. Yet the stated issue is that JEC doesn't fit into a structured development programme. Go figure?

Perhaps if the "review" of JEC was published we might have some better information as to the thinking. And communication would be better.

[Red Adder]

I'm with Andypat with the strong objection to the flat rate levy. 6 years ago I instigated our club's Summer Series (cat D) as a way of keeping interest up in the summer and a free thank-you to the most active orienteers [who also are generally the club's most active volunteers]. As it proved popular with members of other local clubs and non-members it became only fair to make a small charge, which had to go up by 50% when BOF demanded their cut. Increases to levy (at 5x the rate of inflation) and demands for some land access fees means the only body not making on the event is the club (and its volunteers, none of whom have charged any expenses).

Charge more you say but I don't think £ 4 /£2 for a 3.5km jog round a local park albeit on pre-printed up-to-date maps represents good value (especially for a family). You can guess what won't happen next.

BOF wanted a simple income raising scheme but I think they could well find that its not the most appropriate solution and will have unwanted consequences.


[PS I wrote to BOF at the times with my concerns but didn't receive any reply]

[Homer]

The non-inclusion of JEC in the 2014 programme has been reviewed, and that decision now amended. An updated selection policy schedule has been published. JEC has been recognised as a good opportunity for some developing athletes, and there will be a GBR team at JEC 2014.

Good news on the face of it, but the selection policy still says the following:
Athletes unattached to a squad will be required to register their interest in being selected before the
28 February of the year in which competition will take place
So presumably my kids have already missed their chance?

[Spookster]

@Homer - the 28 Feb deadline can't apply if the policy is updated in March and an additional competition added. I suggest you get Bart and Lisa to declare interest a.s.a.p.

@bewildered - the policy states "Minimum standards will change dependent on the competition and will be established by the NTP Manager on behalf of the programme as required. Athletes wishing to determine the minimum standards for a competition should communicate directly with the NTP Manager." So I suggest that if interested athletes (or their coaches) need more clarity, they should contact Sarah.

[bewildered]

Martin

The Policy is owned by the Board of British Orienteering, and that body is responsible for approval of the Policy and any future changes to it.
Normally the Performance Committee will make recommendations to the Board regarding changes to the Policy in accordance with Section 7.

When did the Board approve the changes?

Read the Purpose of the Policy. Does it provide a clear understanding of what is required to merit selection? No, it doesn't, if, as you say, they have to ask Sarah what they have to do.

The gobbledygook you quoted means that selection is at the whim of the NTP.

[buzz]

So I suggest that if interested athletes (or their coaches) need more clarity, they should contact Sarah.

I admire your optimism but communication isn't Sarah's strong point. I'm still waiting for a reply to an email requesting clarification of selection criteria sent last year and the selection races are just a few weeks away now.

Contrast that with JROS who have clear, well presented, selection criteria in the first place and replied promptly and professionally to the same query.

[andy]

I admire your optimism but communication isn't Sarah's strong point. I'm still waiting for a reply to an email requesting clarification of selection criteria sent last year and the selection races are just a few weeks away now.

Are you sure the email got there? Perhaps a phone call would be better.