Awk is right the reason BOF incurred the >10K pa non-member insurance costs is because clubs asked them to, in order to make landowner permissions easier. It doesn't really matter if that is an actual landowner requirement or simply a perceived need - no organiser is realistically going to get into a debate and re-educate landowners on insurance and liability law. Reversing that and simply saying no non-members at certain events is something a club can decide to do and is no worse off now than before.
My perception is since clubs no longer had/needed to say "three come and try then you have to join for insurance reasons" some clubs (i) stopped encouraging people to join; (ii) resent BOF's existence and so are happy to take members who are not BOF members - likewise quite a few push the boundaries of "activity" to avoid paying levies; (iii) don't have a good reason to join the club (or BOF). Those are actually bigger systemic issues, and a small financial incentive will help a little but not enough.
Apparently, the consultation said clubs didn't want that hassle of dealing with day membership - although nobody really knows what such a hypothetical scheme would involve. Certainly the old "3 events" limit created much head-scratching in our club. Did that mean someone couldn't take part in a 4th event or were simply uninsured? Did that expose the club to risk or only the runner? did they understand that risk? was it our job to tell them? Was it 3 in a year or 3 in a lifetime? How would we know if they had run other events at a neighbouring club etc.? Frankly compared to those things which other than lively but fruitless committee discussions nobody bothered about - day membership would have been trivial!
Now I think Scottish clubs might have a legitimate grumble because before that rule change SOA only members seemed to be covered under the policy (there was no 3 event limit for them). Now it is possible that was a mistake/misunderstanding and they were never covered, but it seemed like there was some sort of blanket cover for SOA members too. Those people are going to find their costs going up. There is an issue there that there's little incentive for an average Scottish orienteer to join BOF (if they are not at the level to be driving long distances to run British champs etc) but equally an unfairness if a SWOA member doesn't get the same option to just race in their region and pay less. Really BOF should have tackled that issue. One of the issues is that those responding to the consultation are existing BOF members so subject to massive survivor bias and "this is how it's always been" syndrome. Frankly, the opinions of people who are BOF members on why people don't become BOF members are rather irrelevant to solving the problem.
BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
44 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
AndyT wrote:The proposal to have a new senior non member levy category at a rate of £2.50 will achieve nothing worth achieving.
Well, it's expected to raise a bit more cash for BOF
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
For most (all?) clubs, it needn't make any difference as to how they structure the fees. What it fundamentally comes down to is that BOF have said that's how they are structuring their 'tax', but how the club's raise the money to pay the tax is up to them. It is true that clubs could simply raise non-member fees across the board, but equally they needn't. They could absorb it, and simply reduce their margins, or could raise fees across the board for members and non-members alike. They could decide to add a non-member fee to their bigger events, and keep their smaller events the same price for anybody, or just charge more for more technical courses, and so on and so on.
What it doesn't mean is an increase in fees to newcomers, unless clubs decide that this is what they want to do.
I must admit my initial reaction was to be totally against this, but having discussed it with my club treasurer (who says it doesn't involve any more work either) and others, I'm a lot more relaxed about it. It's really up to the clubs as to what they do (and some still charge £2 for non-members anyway).
BTW, can anybody clarify - does the non-member levy include foreign competitors, or is there any quid pro quo with other federations (there is AIUI in sports like audax)? If not, strikes me that events like the S6D (S5D?) are the ones most likely to be affected.
Atomic wrote:Frankly, the opinions of people who are BOF members on why people don't become BOF members are rather irrelevant to solving the problem.
Too true.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
awk wrote:BTW, can anybody clarify - does the non-member levy include foreign competitors, or is there any quid pro quo with other federations (there is AIUI in sports like audax)? If not, strikes me that events like the S6D (S5D?) are the ones most likely to be affected.
The insurance explicitly excludes people with a permanent address outside the UK - whether or not they are members, whatever their citizenship.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
So what about BOF members whose permanent address is outside the UK ? I can think of a few....
Are they being discriminated against, and what are the implications for any event they participate in ? Does this mean there is a hole in the insurance we tell landowners we have irrespective of what mechanism is in place to cover non-members ?
Does this mean under the new proposals an increased levy will be due for non-UK resident BOF members ?
How is a club treasurer (or any semi-automated levy calculation) meant to differentiate between a UK-resident BOF member and a non-UK-resident BOF member ?
Are they being discriminated against, and what are the implications for any event they participate in ? Does this mean there is a hole in the insurance we tell landowners we have irrespective of what mechanism is in place to cover non-members ?
Does this mean under the new proposals an increased levy will be due for non-UK resident BOF members ?
How is a club treasurer (or any semi-automated levy calculation) meant to differentiate between a UK-resident BOF member and a non-UK-resident BOF member ?
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I think in this long Nopesport thread the original issue has got a bit lost.
The AGM papers say the increased insurance costs incurred when we asked the insurers to cover all participants amounted to “54p per non-member participant when averaged across seniors and juniors”. I don’t know the balance between senior and junior participation, but I would guess that as the increased levy only covers seniors, 85p per non-member senior will not be very different from the cost to British Orienteering to insure non-members. If we vote out this proposal, we will need to increase income some other way, presumably by increasing levy across the board. If so, we will end up paying the same total revenue over a year for the same mix of events. If we are incurring extra costs for non-members, then surely paying more to British Orienteering for their participation makes sense, whether a club decides to pass that on to them or not.
Won’t voting for it be a winner in two ways? If it encourages clubs who don’t already charge more for non-member seniors to charge more, then we will have more British Orienteering members. Thus revenue from both levy and membership would increase, meaning levy costs will not need to increase so much next year. A higher proportion of member participation should also mean the extra insurance cost would decrease.
The AGM papers say the increased insurance costs incurred when we asked the insurers to cover all participants amounted to “54p per non-member participant when averaged across seniors and juniors”. I don’t know the balance between senior and junior participation, but I would guess that as the increased levy only covers seniors, 85p per non-member senior will not be very different from the cost to British Orienteering to insure non-members. If we vote out this proposal, we will need to increase income some other way, presumably by increasing levy across the board. If so, we will end up paying the same total revenue over a year for the same mix of events. If we are incurring extra costs for non-members, then surely paying more to British Orienteering for their participation makes sense, whether a club decides to pass that on to them or not.
Won’t voting for it be a winner in two ways? If it encourages clubs who don’t already charge more for non-member seniors to charge more, then we will have more British Orienteering members. Thus revenue from both levy and membership would increase, meaning levy costs will not need to increase so much next year. A higher proportion of member participation should also mean the extra insurance cost would decrease.
- PG
- light green
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: In the Peak
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Our Local History Society has a meeting I'm actually interested in this week.
If I was still a member, it would be free, but my membership has lapsed and I am content to pay the £4 fee.
People contribute to the overheads through membership or by one-off payments.
It happens in all walks of life, why do we expect orienteering to be different?
If I was still a member, it would be free, but my membership has lapsed and I am content to pay the £4 fee.
People contribute to the overheads through membership or by one-off payments.
It happens in all walks of life, why do we expect orienteering to be different?
- Karen
- red
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:50 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
so after all that, what was the result ?
- DaveL
- string
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:49 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
DaveL wrote:so after all that, what was the result ?
478 For v 211 Against.
- mikey
- diehard
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: here and there
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Winding back to the beginning of this thread I believe that it is important to understand the recent history of the BOF TLA insurance policy. Under the previous regime BOF moved to a policy that provided third party liability insurance for members and staff, plus non members but only for their first 3 events. This was a meaningless fudge of course since how would any club know how many events across the UK a non member had been to + and there was no built in incentive for non members to join.. So the policy has been extended to cover all non members, but this came with a large increase in the policy cost attached - and someone needs to fund it.
The various London clubs run a string of midweek winter and summer events which often have 50% non members. The same non members, week after week, who put nothing back into our sport. Clubs are of course free to offer incentives for newcomers to try the sport and indeed to join their clubs, but some people just aren’t interested - the so called Pay to Play mentality.
It is also important to distinguish between the levy amount for a non member and the difference in levy between member and non member . The discussion point surely is the latter and as has already been pointed out that is 85p and not £2.50
I believe that the proposal is/was a reasonable one
The various London clubs run a string of midweek winter and summer events which often have 50% non members. The same non members, week after week, who put nothing back into our sport. Clubs are of course free to offer incentives for newcomers to try the sport and indeed to join their clubs, but some people just aren’t interested - the so called Pay to Play mentality.
It is also important to distinguish between the levy amount for a non member and the difference in levy between member and non member . The discussion point surely is the latter and as has already been pointed out that is 85p and not £2.50
I believe that the proposal is/was a reasonable one
- Slowtochide
- orange
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:47 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
The misinformation around this proposal is still continuing to be pushed. Which is the most disappointing thing.
The "£2.50 tax" on newcomers claim is flat out wrong and has been pointed out numerous times, but it continues to be the headline claim.
Trumpian tactics
The "£2.50 tax" on newcomers claim is flat out wrong and has been pointed out numerous times, but it continues to be the headline claim.
Trumpian tactics
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I assume most clubs will simply add £1 onto non members entry fees.
For any clubs worrying that this might impact attendance, that is not our (SAXONS) experience over the past multiple years where non members entries have been £2/£3 more than members entry fees. We can usually get a decent turnout of non members, especially if it's in the country park type areas, and (somewhat counter intuitively) in the cooler months of the year. It does need a bit of effort with publicity.
As always the number of these non members who become regular orienteers is incredibly low. It's hard to tell why for sure, it could be so many factors... I've done some analysis before and was surprised by the numbers doing 2 or 3 events a year. I think some people will just do their local areas (ie < 5 miles distance) and aren't so keen as to travel to what orienteers consider local (eg the length of a county), or they just have other things to do with their lives as well as orienteering, even if they like it.
Actually to say that these people add nothing back to the sport isn't true. These people add atmosphere and enthusiasm, and are on average younger than regular orienteers. So they give events a buzz that helps to retain regular orienteers, especially younger and less experienced orienteers IMHO.
Edit - my theory why this proposal was unpopular with quite a large number of orienteers. Despite being arguably the best way to recruit people into mainstream club orienteering, beginner focused events (or courses at events) have seemingly received very little attention from British Orienteering for years. Club members have been plugging away at these events heroically for years, with very little professional support. Instead there have been a stream of BO initatives offering alternative non event orienteering starting with club nights and most recently 'FindYourWay'. I can't remember all the others inbetween. Most of these no more successful, or less successful, at recruiting into mainstream orienteering than a beginner focused club event.... And now when there is some attention from BO for newbies at local events it's 'can I have some cash from your newbies please'..
I can see why this grates a little. Of course we're told SportEngland etc grants are easier to obtain with an eye catching new initative rather than for supporting the boring old events and this is probably true... However the current leadership might reflect on these natural feelings. The extra levy might have been less cooly received if it came with a development initative to help support clubs get newbies to their local events, which would probably have required a bit more tax from all, but if done well could have been a win win for everyone.
For any clubs worrying that this might impact attendance, that is not our (SAXONS) experience over the past multiple years where non members entries have been £2/£3 more than members entry fees. We can usually get a decent turnout of non members, especially if it's in the country park type areas, and (somewhat counter intuitively) in the cooler months of the year. It does need a bit of effort with publicity.
As always the number of these non members who become regular orienteers is incredibly low. It's hard to tell why for sure, it could be so many factors... I've done some analysis before and was surprised by the numbers doing 2 or 3 events a year. I think some people will just do their local areas (ie < 5 miles distance) and aren't so keen as to travel to what orienteers consider local (eg the length of a county), or they just have other things to do with their lives as well as orienteering, even if they like it.
Actually to say that these people add nothing back to the sport isn't true. These people add atmosphere and enthusiasm, and are on average younger than regular orienteers. So they give events a buzz that helps to retain regular orienteers, especially younger and less experienced orienteers IMHO.
Edit - my theory why this proposal was unpopular with quite a large number of orienteers. Despite being arguably the best way to recruit people into mainstream club orienteering, beginner focused events (or courses at events) have seemingly received very little attention from British Orienteering for years. Club members have been plugging away at these events heroically for years, with very little professional support. Instead there have been a stream of BO initatives offering alternative non event orienteering starting with club nights and most recently 'FindYourWay'. I can't remember all the others inbetween. Most of these no more successful, or less successful, at recruiting into mainstream orienteering than a beginner focused club event.... And now when there is some attention from BO for newbies at local events it's 'can I have some cash from your newbies please'..
I can see why this grates a little. Of course we're told SportEngland etc grants are easier to obtain with an eye catching new initative rather than for supporting the boring old events and this is probably true... However the current leadership might reflect on these natural feelings. The extra levy might have been less cooly received if it came with a development initative to help support clubs get newbies to their local events, which would probably have required a bit more tax from all, but if done well could have been a win win for everyone.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I certainly share you sentiments Sean, although I didn't have a problem with the levy proposal, so it is a slightly separate discussion.
Personally, I would much prefer central support for my clubs own events, rather than a distracting and potentially competing format and website. FYW appears confused to me, but that's a separate thread possibly.
This support would include
* Professional promotional materials - flyers/posters/adverts in press and online
* Social media support - paid Facebook ads for instance
* Outreach to local groups e.g. running clubs, scout groups
* Support materials e.g explanatory youtube videos, one page guides etc (might already be out there to be fair?)
But all through the lens of the organising club rather than some overall scheme which doesn't really align with events the club would normally put on.
Clubs can do all the above of course, but it's the little extras mentioned which speaking from my own experience of planning 2 or 3 informal events a year, I'd like to do, but simply don't have the time to. And need repeating for each event. This is the central support I'd like to have.
To balance my argument, I would say BOF may argue their initiative is needed where clubs don't have any/many informal beginner friendly events, and there are some round my way where that would be the case. But have they asked those clubs what help they need to do their own events?
Personally, I would much prefer central support for my clubs own events, rather than a distracting and potentially competing format and website. FYW appears confused to me, but that's a separate thread possibly.
This support would include
* Professional promotional materials - flyers/posters/adverts in press and online
* Social media support - paid Facebook ads for instance
* Outreach to local groups e.g. running clubs, scout groups
* Support materials e.g explanatory youtube videos, one page guides etc (might already be out there to be fair?)
But all through the lens of the organising club rather than some overall scheme which doesn't really align with events the club would normally put on.
Clubs can do all the above of course, but it's the little extras mentioned which speaking from my own experience of planning 2 or 3 informal events a year, I'd like to do, but simply don't have the time to. And need repeating for each event. This is the central support I'd like to have.
To balance my argument, I would say BOF may argue their initiative is needed where clubs don't have any/many informal beginner friendly events, and there are some round my way where that would be the case. But have they asked those clubs what help they need to do their own events?
- Len
- white
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:19 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I've done some analysis before and was surprised by the numbers doing 2 or 3 events a year. I think some people will just do their local areas (ie < 5 miles distance) and aren't so keen as to travel to what orienteers consider local (eg the length of a county), or they just have other things to do with their lives as well as orienteering, even if they like it.
We certainly see at least 3 types of reticent orienteer:
- people who will only orienteer in one or two areas very close to home and are very hard to entice to travel to another area even 15 minutes drive away. Convenience is a factor but I think its also confidence about a map / area they know.
- people who will travel about at far as their run - e.g. if its a 1hr forest event they will drive 30 mins there, 30 mins back and 1hr run but don't want to spend longer in the car than on the course.
- people who will travel anywhere for our own club events but find the idea of a "stranger" on the sign up desk or a regional event with a bit more formality like start boxes off putting. This applies even if the other club is running an event very close to home.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
SeanC wrote:I assume most clubs will simply add £1 onto non members entry fees.
That's not the plan for us, AIUI. We will carry on doing what we have done for a while. At our bigger events, we'll continue to charge £2 extra for seniors on LG+ courses. At our weekend smaller (Saturday) events, we'll charge a bit less, and at our midweek and beginner events, there'll be no difference. The idea being that beginners don't pay more, but those who are more experienced and have decided not to go the whole hog of club/BOF membership still contribute.
I can see why BOF have focused on 'anytime' orienteering initiatives - the limited times/venues don't fit in with many younger people's lifestyles, including our own offspring who is now an occasional orienteer (eg did the S6D), but is primarily a climber partly because he can do that anytime, anywhere (well, almost!). I just don't think that works for a sport where half the appeal is the competition. But then, that is probably just my perspective, as that's half the appeal to me, and without that competition I'm not sure I'd carry on. Although, given that most of the other half is the social interaction, I might (although I wouldn't bother with 'anytime' orienteering except for training).
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
44 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 188 guests