AGM Levy Options

[roadrunner]

Has anyone else spotted that there's an inconsistency in the presentation of the three options for next year's levy? For the 5th event (250 juniors, no seniors), cases A and C assume that the exemption for "all junior" events applies, whereas case B assumes that it does not - rather unfairly implying that for this case £114 more levy is payable. In fact, without the exemption, I make the levy £280 (case A), £114 (case B) and £46 (case C).

Actually, what strikes me most about the options is that there's so little to choose between them for the vast majority of events - only in the 4th case from the bottom (33 seniors, 84 juniors) is there as much as 50p per participant at stake. I'm a bit surprised that we weren't offered one choice at least that was rather more radical - no levy at all for juniors, or a different means of calculation, etc.

If you want to see the impact on a wider range of events, this spreadsheet might help - but no guarantees that I got the calculation right!

[Roger]

Has anyone else spotted that there's an inconsistency in the presentation of the three options for next year's levy?

Yes. I wondered whether it was deliberate: if you make a junior a sufficiently small fraction of a senior (like 1/3rd, i.e. option C), the rationale for exempting junior-only events falls away somewhat. This then avoids the cliff-edge difference between an event with say 300 juniors and one with 300 juniors plus 10 adult chauffeurs / teachers / helpers who have a leg-stretch around one of the courses. Option C with no exemption looks best to me, but appears not to be on the table -- although option B with no exemption may be. Can someone from BOF clarify?

[Spookster]

Has anyone else spotted that there's an inconsistency in the presentation of the three options for next year's levy? For the 5th event (250 juniors, no seniors), cases A and C assume that the exemption for "all junior" events applies, whereas case B assumes that it does not - rather unfairly implying that for this case £114 more levy is payable.

I am fairly certain that is an error, and that the junior only events are exempt from levy in all three cases (A, B, and C). An earlier draft of Option B was going to levy all junior events, but after some debate that decision was changed. The asterisk and sub-text has been added to the Option B table, but the figures have not been changed.

Watch the BOF website for confirmation.

[IanD]

Has anybody actually succeeded in getting any event accepted as "junior-only" under the new system? And if so,how many adults ran in it?

[pete.owens]

Actually, what strikes me most about the options is that there's so little to choose between them for the vast majority of events - only in the 4th case from the bottom (33 seniors, 84 juniors) is there as much as 50p per participant at stake. I'm a bit surprised that we weren't offered one choice at least that was rather more radical - no levy at all for juniors, or a different means of calculation, etc.

That is because the events are all fairly typical, and each of the schemes has to raise the same amount in total. Events which are run mainly, but not exclusevely for juniors are very badly hit by option A.

For example we run a schools league. Entry fees £4/£1.50.
On a good day we might get 250 runners (of which 90% junior).
The levy for Option A works out at £280 - ie well over half the the entry fees.
- and what is more, each extra junior we attract would result in an extra levy of £2.60 (nearly twice their entry fee!).

For option B the levy is £137 and for option C, a much more reasonable £80.

So the Option C IS a fairly radical improvement for those events that were badly hit by the new scheme. I just hope enough BOF members realise the implications when they fill in the proxy voting forms for the AGM.

[DJM]

Don't forget that it is always possible to take one event in isolation and find that the levy works against you. For many (most?) clubs, the events where the levy produces an apparently adverse result are balanced by those where the club pays reduced levy. All models are designed to produce the same levy revenue overall so, on average, clubs pay the same total annual levy whatever the model.

"Swings and roundabouts" come to mind here ...

[pete.owens]

You can't just say it will all work out on average, you have to consider the effect on individual events. If the levy makes organising events for juniors prohibitively expensive then clubs will simply stop organising such events.

[Spookster]

You can't just say it will all work out on average, you have to consider the effect on individual events. If the levy makes organising events for juniors prohibitively expensive then clubs will simply stop organising such events.

Well, yes and no. Remember that your club decides what entry fees should be for its events, so your club can encourage junior particiaption accordingly, by subsidising juniors at the cost of adults.

But you are right that overall there is an averaging effect, with options B and C raising relatively less levy from junior events (like schools leagues) and relatively more from low or non-junior events.

[Scott]

Remember that your club decides what entry fees should be for its events

And, erm, market forces. If you raise adult entry fees to a higher level than people expect in order to subsidise your 90%-junior events, I'm willing to bet that lots of people will simply stop turning up. And as pete.owen has said, if there's a strong enough financial disincentive to run schools leagues, many clubs will simply give up doing so, on the basis of how-much-does-the-club-really-benefit-from-increased-junior-participation?.

[Big Jon]

Maroc has worked out the levy costs, based on options A, B & C using last years events. A-£550, B - £330, C - £275. Guess which option we have asked our members to vote for? At almost all of our events last year we had a majority of juniors.

[Oldman]

Even my old brain says that if Option C as favoured by MAROC is accepted, then some other clubs will be paying more since the proposals are all designed to achieve the same total levy.

MAROC and its members are entitled to vote as they wish but they mustn't assume that their wishes will match others. In fact as I've said above, their wishes will not match others if their calculations are true.

[Spookster]

Remember that your club decides what entry fees should be for its events

And, erm, market forces. If you raise adult entry fees to a higher level than people expect in order to subsidise your 90%-junior events, I'm willing to bet that lots of people will simply stop turning up. And as pete.owen has said, if there's a strong enough financial disincentive to run schools leagues, many clubs will simply give up doing so, on the basis of how-much-does-the-club-really-benefit-from-increased-junior-participation?.

Agreed, and options B & C arguably remove that disincentive.

The spreadsheet that contains the 2007 event data, based on event returns to BOF from all clubs, is still available here. It's an easy job to put the different options in, and see the effect it might have on your club (or do as Maroc has, and use your own more recent data).

[Spookster]

The BOF website has more info about the levy options, including a table of what each club might pay under each of the three options (if their events and participation in 2010 match the 2007 levels for which data is available).

Levy Options for the AGM on BOF News page

[Wayward-O]

After a bit of analysis of the impact of the different levy models using the 2007 data, I've arrived at the following observations.

1) Clubs that show as better off under option B will be hardly any worse off under one of the other options. Therefore, the main options to be considered are options A and C.

2) The club that has the highest difference between options is BAOC, who would be ~£2,200 (~50%) worse off under option C than option A. BAOC have the lowest Junior participation rate at 1%.

3) All clubs with Junior participation below 30% (except two slightly better under option B - see note 1) above) are better off with option A.

4) All clubs with >47% Junior participation and a significant (>£100) benefit with one option over another are better off with option C.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if Junior participation is a priority with us, we should be voting for option C.

[LostAgain]

Therefore, my conclusion is that if Junior participation is a priority with us, we should be voting for option C.

and effectively say "Sod the Army"????
If this goes through there would clearly need to be some undertaking to exempt the BAOC in some way?

I'm nothing to do with the BAOC but I would not be surprised if these figures caused them to rebel in someway...... As it would seem a little unjust.