Money - too tight to mention?

[IanD]

We are in the process of putting together ideas/plans/solutions on how we can reduce the carbon footprint of the Scottish 6 Days 2011 in Oban

The biggest carbon impact of the 6-Days will likely be people driving or flying to it. So how about trying to negotiate cheap rail fares to Oban and cheap car hire at Oban?

[Angry Haggis]

We have solved that problem by having all 6 days within a very short distance of each other. So once you get there your milage will be very low, but Oban will be a long drive for many people.

Very impressed with how close together the events are - the furthest from the event centre is about nine miles away (I think the scale bar on the map on the S6D website is incorrect)

This makes the events very bikeable - and Connel is on direct (overnight) trains from London.

[frog]

In general I think all sports should be self funding. I don't really see any reason why my taxes should go to support sports I have no interest in. I'd rather pay less tax and then use the money left to support the sports I am interested in.
It would be interesting to see what happened if this policy was followed, which sports would gain and lose money.
I feel the same about the theatre, opera, classical and pop concerts.
Museums, art galleries and libraries and other large public buildings should still receive public funding but generally I think hobbies and pasttimes should be paid for by the people who enjoy them.
Then we maybe wouldn't be needing to severely cut back essentials like education and social care for the elderly.

[madmike]

Frog concur all that

Froggie for PM

[roadrunner]

In general I think all sports should be self funding. I don't really see any reason why my taxes should go to support sports I have no interest in. I'd rather pay less tax and then use the money left to support the sports I am interested in.
It would be interesting to see what happened if this policy was followed, which sports would gain and lose money.
I feel the same about the theatre, opera, classical and pop concerts.
Museums, art galleries and libraries and other large public buildings should still receive public funding but generally I think hobbies and pasttimes should be paid for by the people who enjoy them.
Then we maybe wouldn't be needing to severely cut back essentials like education and social care for the elderly.

On the other hand, increasing participation in sport could be seen as improving the nation's health, reducing obesity and so on, which would reduce the cost to the NHS (which of course the tax payer covers). In an ideal world people this wouldn't need encouragement in the form of subsidies from the government, but we don't live in an ideal world...

[SeanC]

Some posts that might stir up the debate.

Just to add some more things to think about, here are the figures from the annual report - all amounts are thousands of pounds:

BOF EXPENDITURE

Membership 84
Event Operations 40
Development and Coaching 348
International 284
Admin, Marketing and Finance 122
Governance and Leadership 77

Total: 955

BOF INCOME

Membership and levies: 225.5
Other: 11
Taxpayer: 733

FUNDING GAP (expenditure - income from membership and levies) : 729.5

This doesn't include funding clubs may get direct through grants from SportEngland etc, but I assume this isn't a massive amount, maybe 25K?

If orienteers supplied the money, I suspect we wouldn't need so much of it* as there wouldn't be the overhead of communicating with funding bodies, and our ideas might be more cost effective since it is our own money so we might become more involved... So lets assume a 2 to 3 times increase in contributions from us.

Would we be willing to pay entry fees of £5-10 for a local event, £10 for a district, £20 for a regional? And/or membership fees of say £50. It's the sort of money my wife pays for hockey, but some orienteers (on this forum at least) grumble loudly about current prices, yet alone these sorts of prices. The dilemma is that an ineffective governing body could push the sport further into decline, raising costs amoungst other things.

Frog's policy, or something similar, may be coming down the tracks straight for us..... Interesting times?

*someone with more knowledge in this area may tell me otherwise

[Mrs H]

[On the other hand, increasing participation in sport could be seen as improving the nation's health,

But don't you think that the majority of people who need 'encouragement" to exercise are more likely to go to the gym that actually take up sport? Gym's are mostly commercial enterprises as far as I'm aware. Also although your general health might benefit I'm not convinced that doing as proper sport does much to keep you out of the clutches of the NHS

[mike g]

So lets assume a 2 to 3 times increase in contributions from us ... The dilemma is that an ineffective governing body could push the sport further into decline, raising costs amongst other things.

I would question your assumptions that a governing body needs to be a big, high-spending organisation in order to be effective, or that its activities are likely to make any significant difference to the sport's growth or decline.

It would be interesting to compare BOF's budget and activities now with 20 years ago. I doubt if it received much if any state funding then, and it certainly didn't have the battalions of development, participation and marketing officers that it has now, yet somehow without them the sport had much higher participation particularly among younger age groups.

[frog]

I think if sport isn't to be subsidised centrally then we probably also need to equalise incomes more so it doesn't become something you need to be well paid for, same with the arty stuff. I'm not convinced that at the moment the lower paid folk benefit much from either art or sport subsidies though and suspect most of them would rather have less discrepancy between low and high incomes and then be free to spend their money as they wish rather than have some well meaning person take it off them in tax to pay for orienteering and opera.

[mharky]

Brilliant, instead of paying taxes we just pay for what we use / want to. Be interesting to see how quickly the ministry of "defense" goes bankrupt

[SeanC]

I would question your assumptions that a governing body needs to be a big, high-spending organisation in order to be effective, or that its activities are likely to make any significant difference to the sport's growth or decline.

I'm not making that assumption at all. It's quite possible that big cutbacks might make BOF more effective by forcing change that might make it more effective - if very different. I don't know. Perhaps people reading this might?

On the development front, maybe development officers funded by ourselves would be freed from government direction and be more effective? I would say that was likely. Or replaced by volunteers? Could work just as well if they come forward?

Are you assuming that the model of 20 years ago would be as effective today? Not sure about that. You might be right, but it's a different world. Lots more competition from other sports/activities for a start.

[SeanC]

and bTW Mrs. H. More people would get fitter in gyms if they didn't just move the treadmill at 1.5 mph, stick their headphones on and zone out to EastEnders, then decant to the bar for a burger, chips and 4 pints of lager.

[mike g]

Are you assuming that the model of 20 years ago would be as effective today?

I think it is equally as true today as it was 20 years ago that-
- most successful "development" stories result from the actions and initiatives of clubs and volunteers at a local level, and
- the things that it is necessary for BOF to do to enable the sport to function are quite limited and many of them are done by volunteer members of groups and committees - e.g. arranging insurance and national access agreements, reviewing rules and guidelines, co-ordinating fixtures and competitions.

I would rather see BOF go back just to carrying out those necessary activities, than doubling or trebling subscriptions and levies, which are already too high in my opinion, in order to allow it to carry on the activities that are presently government funded.

My loyalties are to my club, and when I volunteer my time to organise or help at an event I want it primarily to be my club that benefits from that, not to see the lion's share of the proceeds of the event go to funding non-essential activities of a national governing body.

[Scott]

Of course, in the case of the international programme, this isn't a hypothetical scenario - the UK Sport funding (currently £125,000 per year) is going away completely from 2013. It seems likely that we're going to see some major changes both to the way the international programme operates (that's everything from the WOC team to the junior training tours) and to the way it is funded...

[Adventure Racer]

[On the other hand, increasing participation in sport could be seen as improving the nation's health,

But don't you think that the majority of people who need 'encouragement" to exercise are more likely to go to the gym that actually take up sport? Gym's are mostly commercial enterprises as far as I'm aware. Also although your general health might benefit I'm not convinced that doing as proper sport does much to keep you out of the clutches of the NHS

More likely to join a gym maybe, and if they go to do what Sean suggests. It's not just me who thinks gyms are boring - most of the people who join soon find that too, hence stop going and don't get the health benefits. A proper sport is far more likely to get people continuing to go as there's motivation beyond "I need to lose weight" or "I need to get fit". Orienteering is particularly good in this regard as there is competition at all levels, so easy to make attainable targets, and it tends to be fun to do. There is also plenty of evidence that doing sport keeps you out of the clutches of the NHS for a variety of ailments.