AGM Levy Options

[Ed]

I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment of insurance being less likely to be called upon at a schools event than at a mainstream event or a night event. Particularly the kind of people who go to night events are likely to be the kind of people who won't sue if they manage to not-quite-kill themselves since they recognise the inherent level of risk and therefore won't assume that the organisers are in some way to blame, similarly (although possibly slightly less so) for mainstream events. However, get a kid getting into trouble at a schools event and a parent who's not used to the usual (dare I say 'proper') attitude to risk in outdoor sports and you could be very glad of your inn-sewer-ants. Quite apart from the possibility of landowners getting upset after some juvenile who has just damaged their property in some way...

this post was bought to you by worst case scenario, inc.

[graeme]

chance of the insurance being needed is pretty minimal compared to events on snowy Edinburgh hills or a SOL in a standard Scottish forest where people start getting tired and falling over.

Disbelieve. People from outside the sport are far more likely to claim on the BOF insurance, and there are many more involved in schools events. The fact is that 30 years of orienteering at SOLs and snowy Edinburgh hills have led to precisely ZERO claims against BOF insurance.

RJ is getting a bit of a hard time here,

I have this recurrent thought that "RJ" is actually GRoss doing one of his wind ups. (GRoss denies it of course...)

[Snail]

the chance of the insurance being needed is pretty minimal compared to night events on snowy Edinburgh hills or a SOL in a standard Scottish forest where people start getting tired and falling over

IMHO the opposite is true.

BOF insurance is for third party liability* - which in the context of an orieneteering event essentially means damage/accident either to other users of the land, ie the general public, or to the land itself. For a night event in snowy hills there are unlikely to be many of the former. For school events children are less likely to understand risks such as running out in front of horse riders, and unfortunately it's not unknown for the occasional bored child to do some minor damage to fences etc.

If you start getting tired and falling over, and injure yourself, that isn't covered by BOF insurance.


*edit: On reflection I think it does also cover injury to particpants arsing out of mistakes / negligence on the part of the organising team. eg if a taped route goes over an open manhole cover.

[Spookster]

I don't really see any reason that BOF should get any money from this. I see it as completely different to normal orienteering events and more of a chance to introduce kids to the sport rather than use them to pay for elite training programmes.

Now that we've cleared up what insurance does and does not cover, we should also correct the mis-understanding of how BOF spends money. It is the grants from Sport England and UK Sport that pay for "elite training programmes", not money raised from members through membership charges and participants through levy charges.

[Scott]

The annual report has a nice pie chart on page 7 showing what the membership and levy income for last year was spent on - "international" does feature, but it accounts for only 4%. "Membership services" and "admin, marketing and finance" took up most of the members' money.

[RJ]

......RJ won't like it.....

I've got right up your nose distracted haven't I!! However, that is no reason why you should be so rude and insulting. I really did expect a more 'educated' approach from you. Last time I looked everyone was entitled to their view and was allowed to express it!

I have this recurrent thought that "RJ" is actually GRoss doing one of his wind up.

I take exception to that graeme! Gross is far more pleasant and reasonable, and I am not at all skilled in the 'wind up'...... not in Gross' league at all!

I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment of insurance being less likely to be called upon at a schools event than at a mainstream event or a night event.

I agree. Two questions....

Why should the 196th school competitor (65 times 3 plus 1) suddenly invoke the insurance charge and the worry over it being needed, and the sudden need to get the levy in order to pay for it?

Just how much 'call' is made on the BOF insurance, and therefore, what is the real cost per competitor?

[distracted]

RJ - nice to finally get a response from you! Makes a change from being ignored after all the previous times I've asked questions of you... but I see that the reckless overstatements are still being made. Yes everyone is entitled to their view, however it seems some are more likely to back up their opinions with evidence and facts rather than cherry-picking and/or expecting people to take your opinions at face value.

So let's try and explore the facts, RJ. Your events may now be levy-free, but what was the case before the junior exemption came in? Did they not exist before then, did they not have the numbers previously do warrant a levy? Has the junior exemption encouraged you to advertise the events more widely, put on more of these events, dedicate more volunteer time to them? Has the junior exemption, in general, encouraged more of this sort of event to happen across your region/the country? Has your development initiative seen more people joining the club, improved numbers of juniors, encouraged school-club links? Are the events run as break-even or loss leaders, how much do you charge participants, would a ~20p increase per run be a substantial part of any entry fee or a small increase? If you give us some information to back up your stance, we might take what you say more seriously. And we could find out the reality of whether your volunteer effort is really being used "by BOF" or actually has significant benefits in terms of membership etc to your own club - it seems a bit strange that you'd run such a series of events if it didn't...

Insurance is exactly that - you don't expect to have to use it - but I'd rather it be in place if something did go wrong. It is very rarely is used - three times as far as I know, one of which being a number of years after the event claiming that injury/long term health problems had been caused by the organiser being negligent at the time. The benefit to all clubs from having a central agreement, both financially and in terms of time resources, in comparison to every club having to sort something out for every event has to be pretty significant.

[Spookster]

Sounds like whatever British Orienteering decide to do, whatever matter is concerned, RJ won't like it.

I'm sure that's not entirely the case. BOF's latest Focus magazine, for example, contains a good article about 'making the press work for you', and a list of some very worthy winners of the Services to Orienteering Awards. Well done RJ!

[HOCOLITE]

If levy is related to what you get for your money, then schools only events should be exempt because these pupils probably do not use the BOF web site and are not BOF members so get none of the membership benefits or probably want them. They do get the benefit of insurance which has already been debated. They just want an O experience. Hopefully some will come back and become BOF members this could be next week but is more likely to be 'n' years hence. I acknowledge that BOF has provided support for events whether with grants or personnel ( Without Pauline O's input the British Schools would have been a horrendous task.)
What do BOF get from our volunteer efforts to run these School only events?

Participation numbers ....... JUNIOR PARTICIPATION is important to all governing bodies as it does help attract funding. Many years ago when BSOA was formed it was entirely separate and actually 'alienated ' by BOF leadership. Over time the attitude changed as BOF realised they needed BSOA and junior participation. Obviously BSOA was the doorway to more participation.

Potential future membership.

Awareness of the sport to a greater audience, School pupils often come with parents. As a club we find that these interested parents want to try O. A large number of our current active volunteers have come through Schools O. The school children may have moved on but the parents have stayed.
End of spiel.


Answer to distracted re levy position before. 200 kids were free at all schools event so a pretty big event , before the 25p per head came in. British Schools was I believe exempt, not sure about PP Relays and BSOA Score.

[RJ]

Thank you Spookster.... cover blown, and so much for my very obvious soubriquet!

Some facts then, distracted.

I am entirely in favour of the levy system, and for the mainstream events attended by BOF members on a regular 'O' day, to raise the 'sports' funds in this way is OK.

Several years ago, all club only events (the old C5s) were not considered for any levy. Then it was 25p per junior and a £50 rebate. Small levy payments occasionally. Last year(?) all events came into the new levy scheme, but the threshold was set so that almost all informal club events would be free of levy. The exemption was sought for junior only events (our school events) and was granted, because we were going to be liable for £2000+. So the problem is very recent.

Our school events have been going for twelve years or so and have been growing steadily. Now a levy has suddenly appeared, and a not insignificant sum is involved, and we have to solve the problem. I am asking for the exemption to continue for our school events. I think it is unreasonable for us to go to the schools and say that our NGB now wants an extra 16p a head from you, and that is this year..... don't know what it might be next year!

You can probably think of several reasons why the levy should be imposed.... I accept that. But I just don't think that a project that is 'development' based should be included. All of our other 60 local club only events each year are liable, and we do pay some levy from those each year. The bulk of the levy that the club raises for BOF and the sport is from our District events, the Cumbrian Galoppens, generating £300-400 each.

[EricH]

I have some sympathy with RJ in that I agree that his very worthwhile events should not incur a levy. I also agree with the argument that the Junior Competitions group should not have to adjudicate on what is, or is not, a Junior only competition

Wouldn't it solve the problems on both sides if we could agree that there was no levy on Junior competitors in any event and that the levy was increased on the Senior competitors in all events and we changed the number threshold at which levies were paid. My impression is that a lot of clubs actually subsidise the Junior entries on most events so this would not really make any real impact on entry fees.

[roadrunner]

I may be wrong, but I think one idea (if not the only one) behind the original concept of exempting small events from the levy was so that things like club training, which were often provided free of charge, would not have to pay anything to BOF. Perhaps this is a better criterion for deciding which events shouldn't pay a levy - if the competitors don't have to pay an entry fee, there should be no levy; otherwise, normal rules apply. I don't see that increasing prices - whether to juniors or seniors - by a few tens of pence would have any impact, but making a charge for something that was previously free could put people off, as well as requiring more work from the organisers.

[frog]

That's probably fair enough as kids in schools events don't pay anything so school events would be unaffected. The Jamie Stevenson would be affected though and although most of the kids there have o parents last year we had a couple of kids use it as their first main o event after the schools events and as they'd only been to £1 a head local events in addition to the schools events a large entry fee may have put them (well their parents) off, although I think our club pays most ?all of JS entry fees for club members.

[SJC]

Wouldn't it solve the problems on both sides if we could agree that there was no levy on Junior competitors in any event and that the levy was increased on the Senior competitors in all events and we changed the number threshold at which levies were paid.

Agree 100% with this. Why do we always make things so complicated, with levy exempt jnunior events, different levys for different sized events, splitting events into two to avoid the levy.

My impression is that a lot of clubs actually subsidise the Junior entries on most events

Given that it costs the same to provide a junior with the facilities at an event as anyone else, and I have never seen an an event with the same entry fee for juniors and seniors, then this must apply to all events.

So, why not:
- no levy for any junior at any event
- a fixed levy for every senior at every event for which an entry fee is charged.

Can anyone work out what this would have to be from the participation figures and total funding that BOF has to raise from the levys ?

[andypat]

I tend to agree with SLC, but its a bit of a moot point now isnt it - we havent been give this as an option to vote on?