AGM Levy Options

[IanD]

I'm nothing to do with the BAOC but I would not be surprised if these figures caused them to rebel in someway

I thought BAOC already "rebelled" - most of their events are not BOF-Registered, and therefore I would imagine are exempt from the levy (and the benefits of being registered).

[SeanC]

mmm, after scanning Martin's calculations on the BOF website it seems the differences between the options for most clubs is rather small. Which option has the least admin overhead (and therefore cost at BOF hq)?

[geomorph]

mmm, after scanning Martin's calculations on the BOF website it seems the differences between the options for most clubs is rather small. Which option has the least admin overhead (and therefore cost at BOF hq)?

As they are essentially the same model, just with different values to the various parameters, then I suspect the admin cost to BO(F)is the same, but B and C will take more effort for clubs as juniors have to be distinguished (but not significant even in a paper-based event).

After declaring my vested interest that favours juniors, I feel that option C should supported; a very quick scan of some clubs in EM, EA and WM shows that the majority of small local events will not suddenly have to start paying out levy.

I would like to see that the rules for 'junior only events' be fully clarified, and would expect, as an accompanying parent/carer that if I participated then I would contribute to the levy at the lower participation rate.

Would those clubs who regularly run junior only events be prepared to pay a minimal, flat/fixed 'admin fee'?

[Red Adder]

I'd be very wary of the BO page as it only covers a year. I've reviewed my clubs events over a 4 year period as it includes a more rounded picture e.g. 2007 did not include a Badge event, the 4 year cycle did, and we also have significantly different profile and turn-out for events in different areas. It shows me that Option A is better overall unless we have a number of modest turn-out, high junior participation events - then we struggle.

Another interesting point came out from my calculations. I basically applied our clubs average levy per person to the BO figures for overall entries. If I took the BO figure for 2007 the figure came to around the £ 116,000 figured quoted by BO. However If I took the figure over 4 years the average levy per competitor rose from 66p to 87 p (lucrative things these Badge event ).

This suggests that the smaller clubs (or at least those doing smaller events) are paying a disproportionate levy (I estimate that out club may pay 15-20 % above the average figure on the levy) and could be rectified by increasing the size of the zero and low rated bands. Alternately BO could get a surplus on the levies of around £ 40 k.

It would be interesting to see what other peoples number crunching shows.

[Adventure Racer]

mmm, after scanning Martin's calculations on the BOF website it seems the differences between the options for most clubs is rather small.

Though that's missing the point that much as people might like to argue it's all the same as long as your club comes out the same on balance, the different options will still make a difference as to whether particular events are financially viable, and thus whether clubs consider it worth their bother putting them on.

[madmike]

I'm nothing to do with the BAOC but I would not be surprised if these figures caused them to rebel in someway

I thought BAOC already "rebelled" - most of their events are not BOF-Registered, and therefore I would imagine are exempt from the levy (and the benefits of being registered).

My understanding is orienteering is, rightly, classified as military training within the British Army and not classified as sport and events are registered through a different system. Therefore, BAOC don't appear to need "benefits" of being BOF registered. Not sure what the benfits of registration are for likes of BAOC are other than insurance - anyone enlighten me?

[SeanC]

At first glance I thought options B and C are preferrable (to encourage juniors), but now I am veering towards option A. To answer my own question the admin overhead must be less for option A because there will be less events where the organiser and bof admin have to organise levy payments. Maybe stats lovers out there might want to work out how many, at a guess about 200 events?

What counts for families is the price clubs charge (and lots of other things like suitable courses, toilets blah blah). Not every event or group of individuals need generate a profit, so long as overall budget is healthy. Perhaps there is a natural tendancy for a loss making event to be viewed as an organisational failure? Option A is making less profit/a loss on junior entries at larger events, but the benefit is tax simplification and less work for volunteers and paid staff.

[distracted]

Not every event or group of individuals need generate a profit, so long as overall budget is healthy. Perhaps there is a natural tendency for a loss making event to be viewed as an organisational failure?

Well said! The majority of clubs have a pretty healthy bank balance, and some even accept that something like a series of events to attract newcomers, which remove many barriers to participation like location and cost, will make a small loss. But they don't care because the other events they run will more than subsidise them. They are effectively using their profit from 'standard' events in development, and this should be encouraged! I'd be slightly worried if a club's major source of income was schools/junior events...

The levy has to be paid in some manner, in order to keep things up and running. It is nice to be able to choose an option that favours juniors from a development point of view, but we are trying to encourage anyone and everyone to take part in the sport. Put it into context - if a club has to pay an extra 100 quid in the year under one option and ordinarily gets 500 runs at its events, that's 20p extra per person... and clubs set entry fees, so what's the problem? Plus the admin side shouldn't matter too much once the levy is built in to the fixtures/results list on the British Orienteering website.

[Wayward-O]

As an aside question, why was it that we had 2007 data to analyse for the 2008 Levy vote and still have only 2007 data for the 2009 Levy decision? Can't we get some more up-to-date information?

[pete.owens]

Not every event or group of individuals need generate a profit, so long as overall budget is healthy. Perhaps there is a natural tendency for a loss making event to be viewed as an organisational failure?

Well said! The majority of clubs have a pretty healthy bank balance, and some even accept that something like a series of events to attract newcomers, which remove many barriers to participation like location and cost, will make a small loss. But they don't care because the other events they run will more than subsidise them. They are effectively using their profit from 'standard' events in development, and this should be encouraged! I'd be slightly worried if a club's major source of income was schools/junior events...

Clubs do already subsisdise such events - and subsidise juniors in general by charging lower entry fees. The BOF levy structure should reflect this. It is not that running an event at a loss is considered an "organisational failure", indeed the greater the success in attracting newcomers, the greater the subsidy required to pay the levy.

The levy has to be paid in some manner, in order to keep things up and running. It is nice to be able to choose an option that favours juniors from a development point of view, but we are trying to encourage anyone and everyone to take part in the sport. Put it into context - if a club has to pay an extra 100 quid in the year under one option and ordinarily gets 500 runs at its events,

But the example I showed for a schools league event the difference in levy came out at £200 per event. If you run a series of 6 such events a year, then that is quite a hit.

A large active club might be able to absorb this, but a small club would have to seriously consider whether they could afford to continue running such events.

that's 20p extra per person... and clubs set entry fees, so what's the problem? Plus the admin side shouldn't matter too much once the levy is built in to the fixtures/results list on the British Orienteering website.

For most clubs running a normal variety of events there is not really an issue. It is only those events where there is a very high proportion of juniors running wher there is a serious problem.

You should not vote on this based on whether your club might be a marginal winner or loser, but on the effect this will have on those events where it really does make a difference.

[Adventure Racer]

To answer my own question the admin overhead must be less for option A because there will be less events where the organiser and bof admin have to organise levy payments.

How do you work that out (given you obviously haven't worked out which events would and wouldn't involve levys)? Of the examples in the booklet, the opposite is the case! As indeed it is for any event with more than 20 juniors which is floating around the borderline - ie over 25% of total competitors are juniors.

[SeanC]

I thought option A is the status quo? So would include the exception for "junior events"?

Pete Owens wrote

"You should not vote on this based on whether your club might be a marginal winner or loser, but on the effect this will have on those events where it really does make a difference."

Absolutely agree we should think about what benefits the sport as a whole rather than our individual club.

[LostAgain]

I do not agree with any of the proposals and feel we should be more radical.

In my opinion, I would suggest that BO should propose a budget for the following year, costed and justified with varyious costed options, this could be presented at a meeting between the BOC and British Relays. Made available online. We discuss and vote.

If members vote the budget down then it is amended and represented at the AGM at the JK weekend.

Once the £ figure is agreed. This should be collected from the clubs in proportion to their membership level. This could be for examle, on the basis of full members equal 1 and Junior/local = 1/3rd.

Clubs to pay the fee to BO by given date, December 31st, seems appropriate.

It is then up to the clubs how they raise the money. They are at the customer interface and know best where to charge the appropriate fees to cover their costs.

BOF should be held accountable for their budget and once agreed given the money. The levy system is a variable income stream and I feel it is being manipulated and presented to us in way where we feel we may be disadvantaging Juniors or Seniors.

[pete.owens]

I thought option A is the status quo? So would include the exception for "junior events"?

Option A may technically be the status quo, but it has only been so for a couple of months. The problem is not junior only events, but events that are aimed mostly at juniors, but do not exclude adults.

[RJ]

What do we want the sport to be in the future...?? One that encourages juniors and has a high proportion of junior participation? Therefore Option C.

Or do we want a sport dominated by adults with juniors 'allowed to take part'! Option A.