BOF Finances

[graeme]

The annual report has a nice pie chart on page 7 showing ...

well I dont understand what it shows at all. None are the "slices" are things we'd actually write cheques for. Like for example...

Software developing the ranking list
Website hosting and management
Profit/loss on JK and BOC
Hosting International, World Ranking and PWT events
Mike Hamilton's salary
Gareth Candy salary
Laura Martin salary
Costs of preparing bids for funding
Rental/rates and cleaning the BOF office
Event insurance

...I don't particularly need to know amounts here, nor express views on whether they're good value. But I do think it should be clear which piece of the pie each of those (and similar) items would be in.

I can't figure how to set up an appropriate poll, so I invite you all to play "stick the item on the pie". Here's the options...

Membership
Event Operations
Development and Coaching
International
Admin, Marketing and Finance
Governance and Leadership

Maybe spookster or scott can then help us with whether we got it right, but if you really know the answers, don't post for a day or so so we can see how ill-informed people are.

[Scott]

Much though it pains me to say it, I think the Americans do this sort of thing much better than we do:

• USOF accounts for 2008
• USOF budget for 2010

Although obviously USOF has the advantages (purely from an accounts-writing point of view) of being a smaller organisation, with a much smaller budget, significantly fewer professional staff and no sports-council bureaucracy to deal with.

[frog]

I agree that I'd prefer to see the sort of accounts our club produces where you can clearly see where exactly the money went. It is all very vague. OK the accounts would be too complex to itemise everything but it would be informative to have more figures next to real expenses.
I also find the large amount of reserves BOF holds odd, but maybe all national sporting bodies are like that. It grates seeing them put up the levies when they are sitting on several hundred thousand.

[Clive Coles]

I guess someone has to accept the challenge of sticking the tail on the pie.

I deduce from the Annnual report that

the continuation of the development of the website/database was the largest factor......

for the overspend of £2.8 k on membership services.

I assume therefore that's where the IT budget is managed.

I don't know if we will get better clarity as to where the money goes when the audited accounts are made available. Perhaps attendees at the AGM will have more information when they come to approve the accounts.

For the rest of us who record our support (or otherwise ) by submitting a proxy vote we just have to trust our instinct. We were promised copies of the accounts on the website by early March ~ it is now 17th March !

We are also being asked to approve an increase in levy by 3.4%. Again... we have to second guess what spending plans BOF have for the next 12 months. They should at least be able to disclose a budget indicating, amongst other things, the committed IT spend.

[Scott]

The audited accounts are now on the website, but they're no more informative - they are pretty formulaic, and I think their main aim is simply to satisfy the legal requirements (under the Companies Act etc).

One thing to add to graeme's list is Focus - is that "membership services" or "marketing"?

[HOCOLITE]

Membership Services- Obviously must be the website ranking list etc
Admin expenditure is all the salaries.
But no it wont be that simple because the salaries will be costed into different cost groups.

Accounts are statistics that are open to interpretation... Every one does it differently despite accounting standards.

Ie Could Mike Hamiltons expenses to visit clubs in his early days be membership expenses? If so could a proportion of his salary also go there?????

[Clive Coles]

Thanks for the tipoff Scott.

As you suggest the Audited Accounts don't provide any additional insight as to where the money goes.

So the proxy vote folk and the AGM attendees both have the same choice as to whether to support the increase in levy proposal. We just have to trust the Board to keep tabs on expenditure and ensure we continue to get value for money.

I think we need much more clarity over expenditure and openness regarding what is being planned.

Next year I assume the AGM will be held at the JK in Northern Ireland. I hope the new Board will look again at the content of the ADM documentation and timetable they use to prepare for the AGM.

This year it all seems to have come together at the 11th hour. I guess we have this weekend to mull over how we might vote on these financial proposals with our fellow orienteers ~ I cannot imagine many clubs will have time to discuss the proposals as a committee.

Probably need to send in your proxy votes by Friday 26th March if you are to hit the deadline.

[DavidJ]

Next year I assume the AGM will be held at the JK in Northern Ireland. I hope the new Board will look again at the content of the ADM documentation and timetable they use to prepare for the AGM.

I suppose the fact that the date of Easter changes does complicate matters. This year it is relatively early. Next year it is almost as late as it can be.

[roadrunner]

Much though it pains me to say it, I think the Americans do this sort of thing much better than we do:

• USOF accounts for 2008
• USOF budget for 2010

Although obviously USOF has the advantages (purely from an accounts-writing point of view) of being a smaller organisation, with a much smaller budget, significantly fewer professional staff and no sports-council bureaucracy to deal with.

Having looked at both sets of accounts, I have to agree: from the point of view of members, the US ones give more information in 4 pages than the BOF ones do in 14. I accept that the BOF Accounts are drawn up to comply with Company Law, which makes much of the boiler plate text inevitable. I'm not sure that it prevents a breakdown of the expenses as the US have done, though - I'm no expert in this area.

Even club accounts can be difficult - in my club we incur the mapping costs for our main event in one year but the entry fees and other costs appear in the next year, so it's very hard to know whether or not we made a profit. How can arithmetic be this hard?

[SJC]

I agree that I'd prefer to see the sort of accounts our club produces where you can clearly see where exactly the money went. It is all very vague. OK the accounts would be too complex to itemise everything but it would be informative to have more figures next to real expenses.

Membership fees = £102.7k
Event levys = £123.5k
with proposals to increase both.

This works out at about £20 per member and I have no idea what we really get for that money. We shouldn't be voting for any increases until more detail is provided.

[Clive Coles]

Much as I would like to agree with SJC

We shouldn't be voting for any increases until more detail is provided

this could put BOF into crisis. A number of "housekeeping" costs over which they have no direct control increase year on year, To deny an increase will cause them to curtail funding of many of the things that we value.

But they do need to be more open about what new initiatives they are planning and what the cost might be. The annual report does not provide this.

We are being asked to approve a rise at the AGM without being told what it will fund.

A way to bring this out in to the open is to raise a question under AOB. If a question is submitted in writing before the AGM the Board will know it is coming and have a chance to consider their answer. In that way we should get some of the infomation we are seeking.

I will not be at the AGM ~ any volunteers ?

[graeme]

As you suggest the Audited Accounts don't provide any additional insight as to where the money goes.

... in fact there's more information there about actual expenditure than the nebulous headings in the BOF glossy. e.g.

Director emoluments £43,500 (up 1.5k -not hard to understand who that is, and if you compare with USOF, not unreasonable)
Auditors fees £9,246 up £3,000 That 30% increase is nine years worth of RJ's "unacceptable" levy in a oner.
Which tells you why we dont want a more thorough audit! etc.etc.

[Scott]

Auditors fees £9,246 up £3,000 That 30% increase is nine years worth of RJ's "unacceptable" levy in a oner.
Which tells you why we dont want a more thorough audit! etc.etc.

But nobody is asking for a more thorough audit... more thorough accounts are presumably something that BOF's internal finance professionals should be able to produce. And I would have thought that such things exist anyway, if not in a consolidated form - hopefully someone already looks at the overall cost of training camp X or the net cost of Focus and asks whether it is giving value for money.

[andypat]

I dont normally get too interested in things such as accounts, but am tempted to vote against the above inflation increase in membership fee without some indication of what BOF has considered doing to keep costs down. Its one thing saying that the leccy is going up - but can other costs be managed better? The current climate is one where individuals and businesses should be pulling out all the stops to keep costs low - wheres the evidence BOF?

[SJ]

Interesting to see that staff costs are up 47k despite the reference in the Annual Report to staff costs being lower than budget due to late commencing of Event Manager. Director's remun is not up that much and pensions are the same so I guess we have more staff now (which seems to correspond with the chief executive's report)...and it's been said before I'm sure, but if there are less participants in the sport, then do we really need more staff?

Audit fee gone up by 47% in 1 year! Looks a lot but it seems to be due to tax advice so maybe/hopefully a one-off.

It's not unexpected that the audited accounts don't disclose much, especially as BOF has taken small company exemptions. I guess it is a requirement from the Sports Council that an audit is needed at all?

There will be more detailed management accounts available with no legal requirement to disclose them to anyone...but if the annual report included a more detailed cost breakdown (eg that showed how the total "other operating charges" of 680k was reached) then that would potentially be interesting?

I've never seen an Annual Report with so few figures!