Membership & Levy proposal
Senior membership £5, Junior membership £2, Flat rate levy £1.30 per run. These are the figures proposed by the Board following a conference call on Sunday 12 February to discuss the membership and levy proposal for the AGM. A number of issues had been raised since the decisions taken at the Board meeting on 14 December 2011. These were discussed and the following points agreed:
A single tier of membership, that is no National or Local Membership.
There should be 2 categories of membership – senior and junior. There would be no family membership category.
A membership fee of £5 which was considered to be the lowest level feasible is to be included in the proposal. This results in all membership fees being lower across Local and National members.
A junior membership fee of £2 is to be included. This indicates that we believe there should be a significant differential between senior and junior membership.
Seniors to be defined as those people in the MW21 age class (21 or older) in the membership year and juniors at the MW20 or below age class (20 or younger in the membership year).
Junior to senior membership should not be a ratio and freedom left to future AGMs to change the ratio although it was noted that a significant differential should be maintained.
No ‘student’ membership category will exist
Levy, there should be a single level at all events except for those events covered by the ‘Partnership Agreement’ (JK/BOCs).
A flat rate levy of £1.30 looked appropriate from current projections
Levy, the ratio of 3 juniors equating to 1 senior for levy purposes should be maintained.
Levy, the ‘student’ category of levy fee will not be maintained although students that are junior members will be treated as juniors for levy purposes.
The proposed changes to fees and levy have been calculated on the basis of being 'budget neutral', that is they will generate income of approximately the same amount as anticipated being generated in 2012.
The Board wish to stress that the levy fee is used to generate part of the money British Orienteering needs to collect to meet the needs of the governing body, however clubs are encouraged to charge entry fees that meet their needs. Levy and entry fee are different. For example a club could provide reduced entry fees for juniors, students, retirees, etc. The club will need to cover the levy fee paid to British Orienteering for the event however this could be covered by other entry fees or met from profits at other events.
(edited to show the updated original post)
Comments and feedback on these proposals should be made to feedback@britishorienteering.org.uk as soon as possible please.
Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Looks good to me at first glance.
Last edited by Paul Frost on Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Paul Frost
- addict
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:25 pm
- Location: Highlands
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
In fact it's very close to the proposal I made last Sept.
- Paul Frost
- addict
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:25 pm
- Location: Highlands
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Not sure how relevant this is, as it depends on how things are counted at present but my scenario is that we have a family membership of BOF - two adults and 2 kids.
Kids are 4 and 7.
Under new proposals I suspect it isnt really worth me joining up the kids (who are only really members by default - family membership being cheaper than two adults as I recall)
Does this mean that BOF immediately loses two members?
I cant believe I would be the only person in this category - so might it have an unforeseen effect on the number of junior "members".
In fact it might even be worse as my wife who only does orange courses doesnt really need to be a member either.
Kids are 4 and 7.
Under new proposals I suspect it isnt really worth me joining up the kids (who are only really members by default - family membership being cheaper than two adults as I recall)
Does this mean that BOF immediately loses two members?
I cant believe I would be the only person in this category - so might it have an unforeseen effect on the number of junior "members".
In fact it might even be worse as my wife who only does orange courses doesnt really need to be a member either.
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
In andypat's case:
Currently Family: Local = £14.50 National = £31.00
As proposed : 2 adults plus 2 juniors £14.00
This excludes any regional/national fees (which may still have a family tier)
Seems OK to me (but then I'm a single old F**t)
The only thing I can foresee is a number of small level D events becoming activities
Currently Family: Local = £14.50 National = £31.00
As proposed : 2 adults plus 2 juniors £14.00
This excludes any regional/national fees (which may still have a family tier)
Seems OK to me (but then I'm a single old F**t)
The only thing I can foresee is a number of small level D events becoming activities
- MIE
- green
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Hmm. I agree that from certain angles it looks good, and I really support simplification measures, but this seems to be undoing many of the good things British Orienteering were persuaded to do at the last AGM to help student orienteering.
So either clubs charge students adult entry fees, or they lose money on each student entered at Junior rates? This is a direct revocation of the proposal that passed at the 2011 AGM (Proposal 6, http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... _agm11.pdf if you're interested) that was voted through with 66% of the vote. Is it a coincidence that the BOF board recommended the membership voted against it, and now less than 12 months later they're quietly ditching it? I don't think we'd get many students along to events if it cost them £8-10 before transport is considered! Interesting also that the wording of the proposal was "That, from 1 January 2012 and until explicitly revoked at a General Meeting, students currently enrolled in full-time education shall be treated as juniors"
I thought free local student BOF memebrship was one of the really positive things BOF did to encourage student orienteers to continue orienteering after uni and in the vacations. I would struggle to persuade newbies to part with £5 more to join BOF.
Anyone know what that means? It must not be a ratio, but the ratio it isn't can be changed?
Levy, the ‘student’ category of levy fee will not be maintained
So either clubs charge students adult entry fees, or they lose money on each student entered at Junior rates? This is a direct revocation of the proposal that passed at the 2011 AGM (Proposal 6, http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... _agm11.pdf if you're interested) that was voted through with 66% of the vote. Is it a coincidence that the BOF board recommended the membership voted against it, and now less than 12 months later they're quietly ditching it? I don't think we'd get many students along to events if it cost them £8-10 before transport is considered! Interesting also that the wording of the proposal was "That, from 1 January 2012 and until explicitly revoked at a General Meeting, students currently enrolled in full-time education shall be treated as juniors"
No ‘student’ membership category will exist
I thought free local student BOF memebrship was one of the really positive things BOF did to encourage student orienteers to continue orienteering after uni and in the vacations. I would struggle to persuade newbies to part with £5 more to join BOF.
Junior to senior membership should not be a ratio and freedom left to future AGMs to change the ratio
Anyone know what that means? It must not be a ratio, but the ratio it isn't can be changed?
- daffdy
- orange
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:23 pm
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
It's quite a big change of strategy and there are some things for clubs to think about, but it opens up some interesting possibilities.
It would only take a small entry fee discount for members to make membership worthwhile for occasional orienteers (eg £1 adults 50p juniors). Alternatively each club member could be given tokens for two or three free runs a year. The current £2 discount is generally applied only at district/regional and above and some bigger local events and doesn't really keep the occasional orienteer.
I guess though the non-competing other halves and siblings in families are unlikely to be members but they will still be regularly reminded about the sport and will hopefully be counterbalenced by more non-family members remaining members (who you really want to remain members as they are more likely to loose touch with the sport).
Presumably the membership system simplification will save BOF a lot of money in the long term.
Local events as activities? That will mean more people having to qualify as coaches. It might mean clubs employing qualified coaches to run series of very local events (for say <30 participants). That might be no bad thing.
Clubs like my own which have a lot of local events with 20-60 participants will have some adjustments to make but it doesn't look too scary. we might have to get used to running more local events at a loss where there are high land use fees and cross-subsidising from more profitable events, but in the long run the proposal will really help our recruitment and retention as a simplier cheaper membership offer should make recriuting and retaining the many occasional (<10 runs a year) orienteers much much easier so it might mean things get cheaper long term.
It would only take a small entry fee discount for members to make membership worthwhile for occasional orienteers (eg £1 adults 50p juniors). Alternatively each club member could be given tokens for two or three free runs a year. The current £2 discount is generally applied only at district/regional and above and some bigger local events and doesn't really keep the occasional orienteer.
I guess though the non-competing other halves and siblings in families are unlikely to be members but they will still be regularly reminded about the sport and will hopefully be counterbalenced by more non-family members remaining members (who you really want to remain members as they are more likely to loose touch with the sport).
Presumably the membership system simplification will save BOF a lot of money in the long term.
Local events as activities? That will mean more people having to qualify as coaches. It might mean clubs employing qualified coaches to run series of very local events (for say <30 participants). That might be no bad thing.
Clubs like my own which have a lot of local events with 20-60 participants will have some adjustments to make but it doesn't look too scary. we might have to get used to running more local events at a loss where there are high land use fees and cross-subsidising from more profitable events, but in the long run the proposal will really help our recruitment and retention as a simplier cheaper membership offer should make recriuting and retaining the many occasional (<10 runs a year) orienteers much much easier so it might mean things get cheaper long term.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
andypat wrote:Under new proposals I suspect it isnt really worth me joining up the kids (who are only really members by default - family membership being cheaper than two adults as I recall) .
In fact it might even be worse as my wife who only does orange courses doesnt really need to be a member either.
But surely with the membership fee being so low there are less reasons not to join and contribute to the running costs of our sport (and boost membership numbers to help funding requests).
I guess that the "Local Family Membership" group see the least effect of the reduced membership fees and may even pay more, but that is partly due to the very low fees that applied to them in the current scheme. But you could argue that National members are currently subsidising Local members to some extent, but let's not get hung up on that but focus on the wider picture for the future.
- Paul Frost
- addict
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:25 pm
- Location: Highlands
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
I'm not going to say too much about Student rates (except that I think they/some of them should have a concession even if over 20) until I've heard from MrsH.
I think it will mean a net increase in funds leaving NE clubs to BOF as many of our events fall below the threshold at the moment (though if we manage to increase participation...) and could therefore mean we have to increase charges (which may decrease participation).
I've just posted onto the BBC an "introductory event" which for adults costs £3.00 -if we were using SI (and paying for it from NEOA) and paying levy we would just be breaking even before any expenses irrespective of how many people turned up.
I think it will mean a net increase in funds leaving NE clubs to BOF as many of our events fall below the threshold at the moment (though if we manage to increase participation...) and could therefore mean we have to increase charges (which may decrease participation).
I've just posted onto the BBC an "introductory event" which for adults costs £3.00 -if we were using SI (and paying for it from NEOA) and paying levy we would just be breaking even before any expenses irrespective of how many people turned up.
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
I think I am broadly in support of this proposal as it means we are rebalancing the relationship between membership fees and levy. Those who participate regularly contribute more to the running of the sport through the levy they pay when ever they attend an event. By lowering and simplifying the membership fee to little more than a token amount this may encourage less active orienteers to join up. I guess someone in BOF has done the maths and worked out that the proposal still generates sufficient income to run BOF.
The main sector of our membership who will be disadvantaged will be the students who, irrespective of age(maturity) , have until now benefited by being charged junior rates at events. A difficult emotive topic. A lot of sympathy for students starting out with the prospect of massive debts to repay as soon as they try to find employment. Less concerned however about the financial impact this change might have on the more mature student who has made a lifestyle change and decided to return to further education after having worked and quite probably built up some savings. I just wish a way could have been found to differentiate between these two types of student. As it is we are probably "throwing the baby out with the bath water"
The main sector of our membership who will be disadvantaged will be the students who, irrespective of age(maturity) , have until now benefited by being charged junior rates at events. A difficult emotive topic. A lot of sympathy for students starting out with the prospect of massive debts to repay as soon as they try to find employment. Less concerned however about the financial impact this change might have on the more mature student who has made a lifestyle change and decided to return to further education after having worked and quite probably built up some savings. I just wish a way could have been found to differentiate between these two types of student. As it is we are probably "throwing the baby out with the bath water"
http://www.savesandlingsforest.co.uk ~ campaigning to keep and extend our Public Forests. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Our ... 4598610817
-
Clive Coles - brown
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:22 am
- Location: Almost as far east as you can get in UK
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
But clubs don't have to increase student entry fees in line with levies though?
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Don't get too hung up about students yet.
I queried the wording with Mike Hamilton and it is being looked at again as it may be incorrect.
Has now been edited, see above
I queried the wording with Mike Hamilton and it is being looked at again as it may be incorrect.
Has now been edited, see above
Last edited by Paul Frost on Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Paul Frost
- addict
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:25 pm
- Location: Highlands
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Paul Frost wrote:andypat wrote:Under new proposals I suspect it isnt really worth me joining up the kids (who are only really members by default - family membership being cheaper than two adults as I recall) .
In fact it might even be worse as my wife who only does orange courses doesnt really need to be a member either.
But surely with the membership fee being so low there are less reasons not to join and contribute to the running costs of our sport (and boost membership numbers to help funding requests).
I guess that the "Local Family Membership" group see the least effect of the reduced membership fees and may even pay more, but that is partly due to the very low fees that applied to them in the current scheme. But you could argue that National members are currently subsidising Local members to some extent, but let's not get hung up on that but focus on the wider picture for the future.
Paul - forget the issue of fees - my point isnt about fees but about membership numbers (which I believe is important to BOF?). I am sure there are many 0-5 year olds out there who are currently registered as BOF members purely because of the family membership. I am simply trying to suggest there may be unforeseen consequences of removing the umbrella of family membership. It is a consultation after all!
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
SeanC wrote:But clubs don't have to increase student entry fees in line with levies though?
True, but it's returning to the situation we just fixed where clubs either charge students junior fees and make less (or lose) money on each student runner, or they charge the full adult price in line with the full adult levy owed by the student runner. That's not much of an incentive to support student orienteering!
Paul Frost wrote:I queried the wording with Mike Hamilton and it is being looked at again as it may be incorrect.
I do hope it's wrong, apart from the student and possibly family aspects, the proposals seem sensible (ish).
- daffdy
- orange
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:23 pm
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
Levy, the ‘student’ category of levy fee will not be maintained
Has been changed to
Levy, the ‘student’ category of levy fee will not be maintained although students that are junior members will be treated as juniors for levy purposes.
and this added
The proposed changes to fees and levy have been calculated on the basis of being 'budget neutral', that is they will generate income of approximately the same amount as anticipated being generated in 2012.
Simon Firth - ESOC
Comments on Nopesport are my own
Comments on Nopesport are my own
- smf
- green
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:42 am
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012
andypat wrote:Paul - forget the issue of fees - my point isnt about fees but about membership numbers (which I believe is important to BOF?). I am sure there are many 0-5 year olds out there who are currently registered as BOF members purely because of the family membership. I am simply trying to suggest there may be unforeseen consequences of removing the umbrella of family membership. It is a consultation after all!
I didn't mean to target you personally but highlight the options.
I agree that it could reduce the number of kids and spouses that are registered as members, so we need to stress the importance of being a member and how cheap it is. The membership renewal forms will need some very careful wording to ensure that all the individuals in a family membership are encouraged to renew under the new system.
I suspect that there are many advantages in only having individual people in the system for long term data analysis and reporting (like ranking, results etc.)
- Paul Frost
- addict
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:25 pm
- Location: Highlands
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 47 guests