Managing Expectations 1:-
Mr H wrote:-
I feel that BOF have got to come clean and not keep us in the dark any longer.
And AMEN! to that, brother!
But don't forget that WE (all) are Spartacus, sorry, BOF; BOF is not a very small number of directors and managers on the Management Committee. As we Councillors ease our way into BOF Central - and that is our mandated role and declared intention - then more information will be made available to Council (of which the Management Committee is but an optional sub-committee) and to the membership as a whole.
And this will inevitably raise the whole issue of which things are 'management/implementation issues' and therefore properly the concern primarily of the CEO and his team, and which things are 'direction/strategic issues' and therefore the proper concern primarily of the member/owners of BOF, to be decided on by our Council, the decisions being briefed by the Chairman (our servant/leader) to the CEO (our servant/ staff manager) for implementation. In this context it is unfortunate that our Direction sub-committee is named "Management Committee". We may need to rethink - or at least redefine this; we may need to manage the expectations of our Officers and managers.
And we also need to manage the expectations of the 'movers and shakers' out in the forest, asking them/ourselves to raise their/our heads from the tactical detail of enjoyable, well-run events (more Fun for more Feet in more Forests) to look at the strategic future and make the difficult choices ourselves. Because if we don't, all the strategic choices will be made for us by people with administrative agendas.
So, yes, you/they/we should insist on getting the information - that's the easy part - we then have to use it to shape the future, accepting that the shaping will inevitably involve expense, effort and compromise. Are we/they/you ready for that?
Managing Expectations 2:-
Guest - (s)he contributes an awful lot, doesn't (s)he? - wrote:-
Try getting into a National Trust building, or your local leisure centre without your membership card. It don't work, and neither should it at BOF events.
And AMEN! to that too, sister!
If you go to the NT or the Leisure Centre, there's always a big sign in the car park, as you approach the admissions window, explaining the tariff. Of course, most people just walk by it and pay whatever they're asked - it's there to inform the uncertain - and to allow the admissions staff to politely, but firmly, correct any misplaced, frequently feckless, optimism. And to get the f-f optimists out of the way if they threaten to hold up the queue...
So maybe we need a big sign at events, explaining all this, possibly in BOF-standard terms with slots for the particular prices obtaining on the day, situated between the car park and Entries/Registration. Most orienteers are very intelligent; they'll pick it up ever so quickly...
And this, as it should, takes the pressure off the Entries team, who are not there to act as stress counsellors.
What we should NOT do is say: "Oooh, Some people won't want to pay the economic rate; we'd better cut all the charges to avoid any possible confrontation". Remember, if no-one's complaining about value for money, you've priced it far too cheap!
And, for the good of everyone's health, never assign a human doormat (yes, you know who I mean...) to the Entries/Registration team! If you have been doing so in the past, stop NOW; you'll be amazed at the difference it makes to the day's takings!
Membership Proposals - Back to the Future
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Managing expectations...
Orienteering is Fun!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
Re: Hypothecation!
John Morris wrote:we have, it appears, a hypothetical hypothecated tax for a reputedly new ring-fenced activity which you know and I know was up and away and running free in the hills and forests of Scotland, Wales and Cumbria some years ago.
Up, away and running, but not exactly free: SOA already make our contribution to RDOs through the SOA levy (and indirectly through the admin cost of getting/maintaining them).
I never understood what "ring-fenced means". Semi permeable might be better as money can get in, but not out.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Non-member surcharges
Some of the posts here (and BOF's own latest proposals) seem to think that charging non-members more at events would cause problems for registration - people forgetting their membership cards, etc. But why should this be so?
In road racing, there is nearly always a £1 surcharge for people who aren't members of an affiliated running club, and this is just managed on an honesty basis - if you are a club member, you state the club on the registration form (which you fill in even for EOD) and pay the lower rate. I don't believe that this is checked very often. Road races attract a far higher proportion of non-members than orienteering events, so you would expect the organisers to be more concerned about people evading the surcharge, but this doesn't appear to be the case.
So - do we think that a significant fraction of orienteers will cheat to avoid the non-member surcharge? If so, it doesn't say much for the sport!
In road racing, there is nearly always a £1 surcharge for people who aren't members of an affiliated running club, and this is just managed on an honesty basis - if you are a club member, you state the club on the registration form (which you fill in even for EOD) and pay the lower rate. I don't believe that this is checked very often. Road races attract a far higher proportion of non-members than orienteering events, so you would expect the organisers to be more concerned about people evading the surcharge, but this doesn't appear to be the case.
So - do we think that a significant fraction of orienteers will cheat to avoid the non-member surcharge? If so, it doesn't say much for the sport!
- Guest
In WAOC we charge £1(50p for juniors) extra for non-o club members at colour-coded events and this works well. We have only had 1 or 2 people abuse this. Our membership secretary looks at results as it is easy to spot someone claiming to be a club member who isn't. Remembering that newcomers will also have to pay 50p to hire an SI-card, we feel that £1 is about right on top of the entry fee. Charging an extra £3 on an entry fee of £4 is excessive. Has anything been mentioned for juniors as charging an extra £3 on a £1.50 entry fee is an excellent way to drive away all families?
However we don't charge newcomers extra at C5 SMILE and CATIs as we put these lowkey events on to try and encourage newcomers and the inexperienced.
Putting any levy on C5s would be counterproductive for us. At £3 we would probably have to give up on C5s just as they are feeding new orienteerers through to colour-coded events and above.
However we don't charge newcomers extra at C5 SMILE and CATIs as we put these lowkey events on to try and encourage newcomers and the inexperienced.
Putting any levy on C5s would be counterproductive for us. At £3 we would probably have to give up on C5s just as they are feeding new orienteerers through to colour-coded events and above.
- Guest
The question that nobody has answered is why BOF need the increase in revenue and can the sport afford it? From what I can make out BOF has a revenue of aproximately £800,000 which equates to £100/orienteer.Do we get good value?
I would have thought that head office should be prunning not increasing staff. There has been no evidence given to indicate that any national initiatives have increased membership. C5s properly targeted seem the way forward but they would be distroyed by the pressent proposal.
I would have thought that head office should be prunning not increasing staff. There has been no evidence given to indicate that any national initiatives have increased membership. C5s properly targeted seem the way forward but they would be distroyed by the pressent proposal.
- mb
- string
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:12 am
As I see it there are two issues with the current state of play:
1) A decline in membership/participation has reduced BOF's income.
2) A decline in membership/participation will in future reduce events to an unmanageably low level.
The net effect being that in order to try and avert 2 we need to do something about 1 to fund it? Or at least that's what I'm reading.
I've got to agree that lower BOF annual fees will help keep people as BOF members. You orienteer twice in a year then get a bill for £30 at Christmas then you don't pay it do you? I agree we want to keep people as BOF members as much as possible and keeping the fee low is good for this. In this day we're on average much more conservative and don't mind paying for events but where does that £30 a year (tax?) help me individually? I'm not speaking for myself but an occasional orienteer feels this way I'm sure.
I know we always look at other sports and it doesn't normally get us anywhere no other sport charges for club and national membership in one go. If you had BOF bill for £15 (say) come at Christmas and club bill come in April for £15 then you're more likely to say OK then.
The other conclusion from looking at other sports is none that I do have regions, or at least those which require compulsory membership. What do regions do that couldn't be devolved to clubs or evolved to BOF, or at least financially? The one thing that must stay is regional junior squads, but I'm not sure we need to have a regional fee for this, and indeed why regions vary in price?
1) A decline in membership/participation has reduced BOF's income.
2) A decline in membership/participation will in future reduce events to an unmanageably low level.
The net effect being that in order to try and avert 2 we need to do something about 1 to fund it? Or at least that's what I'm reading.
I've got to agree that lower BOF annual fees will help keep people as BOF members. You orienteer twice in a year then get a bill for £30 at Christmas then you don't pay it do you? I agree we want to keep people as BOF members as much as possible and keeping the fee low is good for this. In this day we're on average much more conservative and don't mind paying for events but where does that £30 a year (tax?) help me individually? I'm not speaking for myself but an occasional orienteer feels this way I'm sure.
I know we always look at other sports and it doesn't normally get us anywhere no other sport charges for club and national membership in one go. If you had BOF bill for £15 (say) come at Christmas and club bill come in April for £15 then you're more likely to say OK then.
The other conclusion from looking at other sports is none that I do have regions, or at least those which require compulsory membership. What do regions do that couldn't be devolved to clubs or evolved to BOF, or at least financially? The one thing that must stay is regional junior squads, but I'm not sure we need to have a regional fee for this, and indeed why regions vary in price?
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
FatBoy wrote:What do regions do that couldn't be devolved to clubs or evolved to BOF
Dont know if you think of SOA as a region, but basically only SOA seems to be able to deal with
Scottish Sports councils and pay attention to Scottish Law.
In principle, this could be devolved to BOF like dealing with English issues. But there'll be scepticism from Scots orienteers who have experienced the blank looks of the Englishmen in BOF when asked about...
1/ How major fixtures consider Scottish (not English) holidays.
2/ How development considers the political sensitivies of sportScotland (not sportEngland).
3/ How access guideline address the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (very different from England).
4/ How Child Protection policy addresses Scots law (different from England).
5/ How we're affected by the Scottish Freedom of Information Act (very different from England)
In principle, this could all be handled by BOF. From experience, we know it will be ignored and the only way is to do it ourselves, through SOA.
Of course, English and Welsh regions could work together on that stuff. Then we wouldn't have to pay our professional officer to go to BOF meetings apparently about important legal issues but in fact covering only material which does not apply in Scotland.
SOA does other tedious stuff as well... and the occasional nice thing like coordinating the Scottish Relays (did I mention that already )
Graeme
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
In my head as I was writing it I was thinking Scotland, Wales and NI are probably different cases, and how to achieve that I don't know.
In canoeing they've dealt with this entirely badly but as an example I'll tell you how it works. If you live in one of those 3 countries you join the association relevant e.g. Welsh Canoe Association. If you live in England then you join British Canoe Union (?!?). The price for WCA is the same as BCU and you get all the same perks, plus the WCA news letter. There is some concept of Canoe England which they've brought in which I don't really get yet but I guess it's to even it up if you live in England. Where it gets really bizzare is when you move from one country to another like I just have. I am currently a WCA member living in Derbyshire (come to think of it I'm a WOA member living in Derbyshire too, and will be next year through SPLOT...). When my renewal is up I will have to get a whole new BCU membership number and inform the rankings bod etc etc....
I'm not sure how to conquor these challenges, as you say Graeme there are many issues in Scotland with different laws, as there are in NI, and in Wales you've got Bilingual challenges for promotion in schools etc. My question perhaps though is still the same. You need people in these regions to do the work, and money to do it with, but do punters need to pay for this explicitly or implicitly through their membership? In other words should BOF central pay for all 4 countries different challenges (themselves doing the English and any across the board stuff) collecting the money that was going to the regions.
I guess my point is in our small little sport can we afford a three tier government, or can we rationalise it to two?
In canoeing they've dealt with this entirely badly but as an example I'll tell you how it works. If you live in one of those 3 countries you join the association relevant e.g. Welsh Canoe Association. If you live in England then you join British Canoe Union (?!?). The price for WCA is the same as BCU and you get all the same perks, plus the WCA news letter. There is some concept of Canoe England which they've brought in which I don't really get yet but I guess it's to even it up if you live in England. Where it gets really bizzare is when you move from one country to another like I just have. I am currently a WCA member living in Derbyshire (come to think of it I'm a WOA member living in Derbyshire too, and will be next year through SPLOT...). When my renewal is up I will have to get a whole new BCU membership number and inform the rankings bod etc etc....
I'm not sure how to conquor these challenges, as you say Graeme there are many issues in Scotland with different laws, as there are in NI, and in Wales you've got Bilingual challenges for promotion in schools etc. My question perhaps though is still the same. You need people in these regions to do the work, and money to do it with, but do punters need to pay for this explicitly or implicitly through their membership? In other words should BOF central pay for all 4 countries different challenges (themselves doing the English and any across the board stuff) collecting the money that was going to the regions.
I guess my point is in our small little sport can we afford a three tier government, or can we rationalise it to two?
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
Well, athletics is organised not unlike orienteering. Quote from the SEAA web page:
But you just join a club which (I assume) pays some affiliation fee to one or more of these bodies - all very simple.
Under the overall umbrella of UK Athletics and alongside the Midland Counties AA and the North of England AA, the SEAA is a "Territory" and could be described as a subsidiary of the AAA of England, with the function of controlling, administering and developing athletics in the Territory.
There are 19 County associations who are members of the SEAA, and who send representatives to the General Committee. Forming the County Associations are the nearly 600 clubs who are affiliated to County and Territory.
But you just join a club which (I assume) pays some affiliation fee to one or more of these bodies - all very simple.
- Guest
Levels of Government....
Fat Boy wrote:-
I guess my point is in our small little sport can we afford a three tier government, or can we rationalise it to two?
Perhaps we should re-examine this 'government' thing?
We don't actually use the ROAs as government tiers, but as service agencies for the Clubs. The range of services provided may well be different for the NOAs, especially for Scotland, but the principle is the same.
For technical matters, the governing body is IOF, whose rules are mediated through/by BOF Technical Committee.
BOF Central's key role is to act as sales negotiater and contract manager vis-a-vis UK Sport, our major UK-level contract customer.
In the continuing absence of an English NOA, BOF Central acts in the same role vis-a-vis Sport England.
(Note that these major contracts, the grants paid to fund them, and the application of those grants, should be very carefully distinguished. Especially if, as seems likely, UK-level 'excellence' grants are likely to diminish and England-level 'development' grants are likely to grow. Grants at home-nation level are not BOF business - just ask SOA!)
BOF doesn't 'govern' us; we instruct it, via the AGM, EGMs, Council, and (should Council so wish) the Management and other Committees. And that's as it should be, because we own BOF. Council is the Members' servant; the Officers and Councillors are the Members' servants; the CEO is Council's servant and is managed, on Council's behalf, by the Chairman.
The ROAs' and NOAS' accounts are presented for approval to their members at their AGMs; budgets are similarly presented. BOF's accounts and budgets are similarly presented, not to the Associations, not to the Clubs, but to the individual members. BOF is not, not, NOT, NOT a 'Federation'!
We are BOF; we should understand what our servants (Clubs, N/ROAs, BOF specialist Committees, BOF Central) can do for us; they should predict how much those services might cost; we should agree to fund those that we consider to be good value for money.
Have I mentioned this before?
I guess my point is in our small little sport can we afford a three tier government, or can we rationalise it to two?
Perhaps we should re-examine this 'government' thing?
We don't actually use the ROAs as government tiers, but as service agencies for the Clubs. The range of services provided may well be different for the NOAs, especially for Scotland, but the principle is the same.
For technical matters, the governing body is IOF, whose rules are mediated through/by BOF Technical Committee.
BOF Central's key role is to act as sales negotiater and contract manager vis-a-vis UK Sport, our major UK-level contract customer.
In the continuing absence of an English NOA, BOF Central acts in the same role vis-a-vis Sport England.
(Note that these major contracts, the grants paid to fund them, and the application of those grants, should be very carefully distinguished. Especially if, as seems likely, UK-level 'excellence' grants are likely to diminish and England-level 'development' grants are likely to grow. Grants at home-nation level are not BOF business - just ask SOA!)
BOF doesn't 'govern' us; we instruct it, via the AGM, EGMs, Council, and (should Council so wish) the Management and other Committees. And that's as it should be, because we own BOF. Council is the Members' servant; the Officers and Councillors are the Members' servants; the CEO is Council's servant and is managed, on Council's behalf, by the Chairman.
The ROAs' and NOAS' accounts are presented for approval to their members at their AGMs; budgets are similarly presented. BOF's accounts and budgets are similarly presented, not to the Associations, not to the Clubs, but to the individual members. BOF is not, not, NOT, NOT a 'Federation'!
We are BOF; we should understand what our servants (Clubs, N/ROAs, BOF specialist Committees, BOF Central) can do for us; they should predict how much those services might cost; we should agree to fund those that we consider to be good value for money.
Have I mentioned this before?
Orienteering is Fun!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
Re: Levels of Government....
John Morris wrote: they should predict how much those services might cost; we should agree to fund those that we consider to be good value for money.
Excellent! When?
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
Stay not upon the order of your going...
Mrs H wrote:-
Excellent! When?
AGMs, and other formal review meetings, are good.
So are planning sessions (eg May 7th) and/or moments of crisis (eg May 7th?).
May 14th (Council Meeting at Great Baaaa) might be another auspicious time.
And then there's the promised EGM...
What do you think?
Excellent! When?
AGMs, and other formal review meetings, are good.
So are planning sessions (eg May 7th) and/or moments of crisis (eg May 7th?).
May 14th (Council Meeting at Great Baaaa) might be another auspicious time.
And then there's the promised EGM...
What do you think?
Orienteering is Fun!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
Technically of course you're right, but call it government or call it instructed committee within our organisation, can we afford a three tier or can we rationalise it to two? The point is still the same whatever you technically call it.
I'll leave it in the hands of people who know about these things better than I do but I find it sad that our central office's key role has become grant-getting.
BOF Central's key role is to act as sales negotiater and contract manager vis-a-vis UK Sport, our major UK-level contract customer.
I'll leave it in the hands of people who know about these things better than I do but I find it sad that our central office's key role has become grant-getting.
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 184 guests