I have given up going to the JK and BOCs many years ago as the entry fee is to high and restrictive. But the demographic from the survey (of people who attended!) is male and 50+ - so that would be me
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
But £20+ to run a Blue course - which is what I would get (M50S) is stretching it. So is the JK with its fee structure and ageing demographic sustainable?
It is amazing how such a surplus could be generated from what should be a heavily understood and budgeted event, with 50+ years of JKs and BOCs to look at back on. There should be no last minute gotchas of costs. Or is it the case that BO dictate the surplus and the budget/entry fee is worked backwards from that? So if the surplus was a modest £10K what would have been the entry fee?
Peter's note says "and ultimately the sport of orienteering is the only beneficiary of the surplus." What does this actually mean? It would be better for Peter to have explained how the £60K had been divided up between BO, Association and Clubs (if that's how it's done) and what that money will be spent on e.g. is it ring fenced for projects or grass roots dev, clubs have to spend it on mapping, IT tech refresh etc or does it just go into the coffers and be spent on nothing in particular. Shouldn't we, the membership, not have a say how the JK surplus that BO receives is spent? After all it is the membership that organises, plans, etc etc the whole weekend?
The survey was an interesting one and again demonstrates the lack of comms from BO. Only the people who went to the JK got the survey to complete, so what about the rest of the membership, does their view not count? Maybe Peter would like to know why only a % of the membership attend JK and BOCs?