BOF- A Turning Point - Prepare to be Daunted...

[John Morris]

Mrs H:

I'll hope that you can post the Commentary on the site. I can't see how to - and I guess it's an administrator only thing. Please ensure that Robin's response (appended at the foot of the paper) is also posted - it's written ex cathedra so I'm sure that'll be fine.

Yes, it is a bit heavy - and please don't expect a continuous narrative. What I've done is to shadow the writer(s) of the Revised Proposal, no matter where they took me. You can see a lot of forest that way...

I'm happy for the commentary to travel far and wide. My simple ambition is have this paper brought to the attention of every Club Committee in BOF before we all start sending our postal AGM votes in. If you (O reader) can deliver to such a Committee, please email me with the Club's name, so that I can track (and report on?) coverage. Unless Team Nopesport want to track this? Mrs H?

Oh, and reader? - please weigh and criticise my thoughts as much as I do Matlock's. (I am not a sensitive flower...) That way, we progress... "

[brooner]

I'll hope that you can post the Commentary on the site. I can't see how to - and I guess it's an administrator only thing.

sorted, see above.

Apologies for having to split the topic but this way the file is easier for people to find. Earlier parts of this topic are here.

The Membership Proposal which the above is intended to be read alongside is to be found here

[Mrs H.]

Well done everyone - I'll be plugging this in the club mag as we just missed the committee meeting but everyone in Harlequins will be made aware of this - John many thanks - i'm afraid I must get back to my JK jobs now - only a month to go and if you folk want any apres O fun I need to get cracking

[redkite]

OK, I have read the documents and understand the words, but I am still confused as to the real reasons for the proposals. There is not an adequate explanation of what the real agenda is. (nor the real problem)

There appears to be a lack of any detailed analysis to back up the statements made, particularly by BOF. some simple trend analysis is needed, over a number of years:

membership numbers, by age and sex etc
participation numbers, by age and sex
levies rasied, by type of event
BOF revenues other
BOF expenditure

Perhaps its the accountant coming out in me, but I do not see how I can explain to our club committee the real issues (and the options available) without such information.

Appologies to BOF if such info is easily available, but, given that I cannot find details of current event levy charges on the BOF website ...

[FatBoy]

OK I've just "used" half an hour reading these documents. The summary of John's points has to be - why the hurry? Surely we've been bumbling along for a few years with dwindling numbers and slightly higher fees so why rush in with a half thought out system?

I do agree with some of the detail though - how is it going to cost us less by re-organising the membership/levies? Maybe it will cost some less but others more.

I'm not in for BOF bashing - please don't think so, and I accept as I think John does that something has to change. Just don't rush in something please. (Poll tax?)

Oh and one last note to all - please stop referring to the BOF central office as "Matlock" or "Darley Dale" if you're going to bash it. I starts to offend after a while having where you live bad mouthed!

[John Morris]

Red Kite:-

BOF Office should be able to supply most of what you ask for but may respond, as they did to me, by saying (not unreasonably): "We're all too busy to service individual requests just now."

I have Membership by Age & Sex figures going back to 1990 - the layout may try your patience but let me know if you would like them. I've also done some cohort analysis - let me know if you're interested.

Outline Participation figures appear in each year's AGM pack (but not, I think last year's). BOF Office should be able to provide series by event type (C1 to C5) for at least 15 years.

Levy income (total) appears in the AGM papers - there should also be a split into "Major" and the rest easily available. Fixtures Committee might have more detailed data to hand - Cris Tween might know? The Treasurer should have everything you need, and could ask his Finance team if he doesn't (but again, it all takes time...).

Other BOF revenues - Membership fee income is shown in the Sources and Uses document in the AGM papers, as is a (not very useful) total for miscellaneous income. Again the detail exists in the BOF financial model.

BOF expenditure - see the annual Sources and Uses statements in your AGM papers.

I think it would be an excellent idea if BOF Office were to mount most of what you're asking for on the website, in the name of transparency (yeh! sportThingy bonus points! ). Then we could all mine the data - and maybe feed back some useful analysis...

Like you, I think the lack of this kind of information on the website shows BOF Central (not Matlock , No, no no...) in a very poor light - lots of self-congratulatory guff but not a hint of a hard fact.

Perhaps, if enough gadflies gather, the message might get through?


FatBoy:-

Sorry if I've seemed rude to Matlock or to Darley Dale, Western civilisation's answer to Shangri La...

I was trying to avoid using the term "BOF" to refer only to the NGB Admin group, when it really encompasses (like that? or too contrived? ) all of us.

[FatBoy]

Sorry if I've seemed rude to Matlock or to Darley Dale

I know nobody means to so no offence taken. Just trying to get the record straight for future...

[RJ]

John, your contribution has been very enlightening. I empathise with your analysis of the language and the semantics in the BOF proposal.

OK..... The underlying proposal... One level of membership for all; an overall monthly payment by clubs of membership plus levy; a total bill close to what we are paying already; a complete membership database.... All of that is what we want I would have thought.

The discussion over the dog and the tail is another debate, and that is one that is never concluded to everyone's satisfaction. We have argued, do argue and will argue in the future over that.

The main problem, however, is the steady decline in membership. We don't actually need any figures to be perfectly aware that before long we won't have a dog or a tail! Solving the membership crisis is the single most important job we have. In my opinion it is up to clubs, individually, to solve this. We must put on events to attract these new members, locally and informally.

Many clubs are showing steady membership levels with a few increasing in numbers. The various RDOs are spreading the word on how that is being done, amongst any clubs that are prepared to listen, and this is a very worthwhile role for the RDOs. BOF, as such, won't solve the membership crisis, but they might be able to provide some of the tools and support for all the clubs to do it. Jomo Kenyatta's (President of Kenya) nation building rallying call was "Harambee", translating as "self help". Clubs are the bedrock of the sport, and we will, eventually, bring this sport back to prominence and health, because we all enjoy this vibrant and exciting sport so much!

[John Morris]

RJ:

I agree: there's not much wrong with the proposed package IF it delivers all those good things. And, properly planned, carefully crafted and diplomatically delivered it may come near. BUT, given what seems to be a rather secretive culture at BOF HQ, a tendency to produce novelties from nowhere and say "Take it and be grateful; leaving it is NOT an option", I'm not confident about the planning, the crafting or the delivery.

And you are absolutely right to say that it is the Clubs who get things done, given the resolve and the tools to do them. Indeed, if you impute a reasonable wage cost to Club volunteers' contributions, the value of the resource made available to BOF dwarfs that of fees, levies and grants put together.

You are also, clearly, right to be alarmed about the continuing erosion of membership. I'm personally quite happy trotting through a deserted forest (that's what makes Night events so marvellous!) but you need a team of a certain size, backed by a Club of a certain size, to put the event on in the first place. There's a critical mass issue here; if we can't reverse the decline we shall degenerate into isolated little Neanderthal clusters, clinging to existence in and around a few favoured forests... Enough! Back to the plot.

By targetting taxation on the Clubs, BOF HQ will certainly rouse the Clubs; whether it rouses them to creative co-operation or to antagonistic anger is another matter. King John famously got it wrong when he roused the barons; we don't want a civil war.

And a a civil war could ensue. As you rightly say, you can't get 8,000 orienteers to take coherent action but 100 Clubs, led by perhaps 10 well-organised large Clubs, could embarrass BOF HQ severely.

If they wanted to... My medium-term aim is to see a constructive engagement betwen the Clubs and the HQ admin team of the kind you suggest. That won't happen unless the new scheme is well built, fit for its primary purpose and, importantly, offers benefits to all parties. And that won't happen unless we ensure the quality and the acceptability of the design first. So my short term, gadfly, aim is to get the movers and shakers in each club (a) to examine the proposal critically, (b) to advise their committees on constructive, assertive response, and (c) to ensure that their members vote with their brains engaged.

I'm pleased to see that 35 copies of my commentary have now been downloaded, and that it is being viewed as constructive. That's a bonus, its primary function is purely galvanic. What I'd like to see is many more copies going out, finding their way onto websites and into committees. Anybody reading this, please pass copies to all those who should be aware of the debate.

It's a pity we have to resort to samizdat publication in this way - I thank all of you who are helping. Thinks: if only BOF had a website...

[LostAgain]

I can almost hear the call "John Morris" for Chairman?

[HOCOLITE]

Surely it's executive officer not chairman, the elected officials don't seem to have much input, it seems to be the permanent staff who generate the directives. Sometimes it seems as if the commandant general is running the organisation, and that the council are dictated to. Certainly there was quite a rumpus when at a recent AGM the mambership asked why they were not informed about 'experiments' the head table claimed not to have the documentation so couldn't answer the questions

[John Morris]

Hocolite, you say:-

Certainly there was quite a rumpus when at a recent AGM the mambership asked why they were not informed about 'experiments' the head table claimed not to have the documentation so couldn't answer the questions .

Well I have to confess that, in earlier days, I have been there, done that, and bought the hair shirt. As an Officer, it's difficult to have everything at your finger tips; if you want a detailed answer to a difficult question from the floor at a formal meeting, it makes sense to contact your victim first, so that he/she has time to prepare.

It makes even better sense to discuss the matter informally, by phone or email, or in the Apres-O car park. (After all, why wait for the AGM?) That way you can explore the problem, invite others into the discussion, see the world from different viewpoints.

What I find most disappointing about the issue we're talking about in this thread is that BOF Central has not found a way of holding such a discussion. It's no secret that that Club-based funding plan is flawed; its presenters admit as much. And it's no secret that the timetable for approval and implementation is desperately ambitious - same source.

What we need is a public discussion of the plan's weaknesses, and how they can be fixed, starting as soon as possible. And that discussion needs to be a genuine multi-contributor conversation, not a formal "consultation" in which BOF HQ feels free simply to dismiss inconvenient suggestions. An internet forum is the ideal venue - it's open to all but well-ordered - anyone can join in, knowing that their words can't be shouted down - and if, as tends to happen, the discussion drifts off target a little, we can all refer back to earlier relevant contributions, because the words are still on the page.

Unfortunately, BOF hasn't got an internet forum - as far as I know - so we'll have to make do with Nopesport...

It would be nice to see a contribution on this site from the Revised Proposal's authors. It would be nice to see what questions have been raised, what inconvenient obstacles mentioned. So, if anyone out there looking in is in contact with Ranald & Co, please invite them to come onstage. It can only help BOF HQ's PR with the forest-wise; it may even impress the political purse-holders.

And if, if, we can get a productive debate running quickly, before the postal voters mark their AGM papers, it may make the difference between a conditional acceptance and an unambiguous rejection of the Club-focussed funding plan.

Up to you, guys! Ready to talk to (sorry, with) your stakeholders?

[Mrs H.]

Mmmm... Perhaps they've all gone home early as it's Friday afternoon - or perhaps it's snowing hard and they haven't got in at all What's the weather like up there Fatboy - did I tell you I used to own a house in Winster?

[FatBoy]

Mmmm... Perhaps they've all gone home early as it's Friday afternoon - or perhaps it's snowing hard and they haven't got in at all What's the weather like up there Fatboy - did I tell you I used to own a house in Winster?

Very snowy across the tops (just come back from Stodge's) but Darley itself not too bad. I would say garden is 50% white. Currently not snowing but was doing some wet snow a while back.

No you didn't mention it - it's nice is Winster. Good climb up from Darley Dale on a bike up to there - I'm hoping it'll make me fitter!

[Mrs H.]

Yes but it's Wednesday now and they still haven't taken the opportunity to respond - and yet they must be looking and this is exactly the sort of communication they should be hoping for - so what's going on?