JWOC - the aftermath?

[Red Adder]

If (when) national funding bodies cut financial support for international competition for amateur sports I think orienteering will have a large problem.

Taking the figure quoted above (£ 280k) and the number of members (3< £10) that is potentially a per-capita donation of around £ 30. I suspect many members would not be to happy and would ensure a best a very lively debate, at worst some sort of schism within the sport.

I'm afraid I'd be one of those very strongly opposed for ordinary members to subsidise the elite, and would reject out of hand any levy directed at events or clubs to fiance these activities, or a significant cut in other BO budgets that was to the detriment of ordinary members.

[Becks]

Can you explain why you're so averse to funding the elite? This is something I completely fail to understand. £30 a year is almost nothing to your average orienteer.

Saying that, I'm not convinced a direct tax on the membership is really the way to go either - for a start it will never get passed and can only result in more inexplicable bad feeling towards the elites.

There are other places for individuals and groups to obtain money from - local councils, foundations, charitable grants etc. These require a lot more hard work to get, as they generally come in smaller bundles, but even when I was a GB Junior were quite a common way of funding trips. On a grander scale, I think I am right (but not totally sure, please correct me if I'm wrong!) in saying that the Edinburhg initiative is partly funded by "Winning Students," which I assume is a Scottish funding initiative but may be way off the mark - I left just as it was getting set up.

The idea of events as fundraisers is great, but I think works better over here in the US than it would in the UK. I was at the last one, which was a WRE, and the planner/organiser/controller came from the local club WCOC, while the US team manned starts, finishes, and collected controls. There were also a lot of helpers from WCOC. It was a huge amount of effort for a club to make little or no profit from, and due to the smaller numbers involved in running, doesn't raise a huge amount. To raise enough money to be worthwhile, it would need to be a big event, but within the rules and constraints of BOF, it would also need lots of extra manpower outside the squad. I imagine there are few selfless clubs that would provide that much extra for nothing, and I don't blame them. There is a huge amount of positive energy surrounding the National Team over here - they help out everywhere, they travel miles and miles to the big races, and people really get behind them as they get absolutely no financial support other than a donation towards the big races. I recently had the Kempster, Patrick Goeres and a few other Canadians stay on the floor at my place to minimise training camp costs.

How about running/trail races though? Kitch set up a few of these in the Pentlands, us lot hung the markers, sometimes raced, and everything was pretty easy. Trail races are increasing in popularity, a few squaddies and helpful others could run one with relatively little energy.

The funding used to be out there, and most likely still is in many places. Maybe one of the paid positions at BOF should be fundraising related instead of box ticky related?

I also just got a phone call from the Connecticut special olympics team, who have rigged some deal with magazine providers to get people subscriptions where some of the money goes to help the team. Probably impossible for us, but it's an idea.

[Scott]

Can you explain why you're so averse to funding the elite? This is something I completely fail to understand. £30 a year is almost nothing to your average orienteer.

I'm sorry, Becks, but that's asking the wrong question.

If we are going to ask the wider membership to fund the international programme, we need to have a lot of very good reasons why they should fund it - simply asking "why not?" and expecting people to pay up as a default won't really cut it. After all, £120 is a lot of money for a family of four to contribute towards somebody else's kid getting a subsidised training camp in Scandinavia.

It's not that there is a lot of "inexplicable bad feeling towards the elites" - except for a small, vocal minority, most of the ill will that exists is due to misconceptions (a lot of people believe their membership fees/levies are funding the international programme already), or relatively minor grips (the fact that the elite season appears to be constraining the timings of the assorted British Championships).

I'd argue that most orienteers are just plain indifferent to the elite: they have no contact with them, and see them as completely removed from their part of the orienteering world.

It isn't easy to convince someone who sees orienteering as a basically fun leisure activity that they should subsidise the orienteering of other grown adults who they don't know, just because the other adults happen to be younger and/or better at the sport than them. It's even harder to convince someone who (like a lot of orienteers) already gives back heavily to the sport with the volunteer time they put into the "boring bits" of making orienteering happen.

Now, I believe that a strong performance programme does have benefits for the wider sport - although maybe not £280k worth of benefits. Successful elites inspire youngsters to take up the sport and to stick with it. They are a brilliant aid to publicity when advertising the sport to outsiders. These are both things the BOF could probably make more of than they do at the moment.

The coaching and technical expertise that is acquired and developed in the elite programme filters down to coaching and event organisation at lower levels, making the sport more fun for everybody. Some of the most fun and popular innovations in the sport in recent years - the sprint and middle disciplines are the obvious examples - grew out of elite competitions. (And there are plenty of other benefits - feel free to suggest some.)

Anyway, rant over. My point (which International Committee also seem to have realised) is that if we are going to ask the wider member to support the performance/international programme in the future, then we first need to convince the wider membership of the benefits to the sport as a whole of having a strong performance programme. And at the moment there's quite a lot of work to be done there...

[Clive Coles]

I think Scott you have hit on the funding challenge which BOF face if they are to sustain the various development /coaching initiatives they now have in place for the elite squad and aspiring juniors.

I would however expand your statement .... I would argue that many if not most orienteers are switched off by BOF and are also just plain indifferent to the elite: they have no contact with them, and see them as completely removed from their part of the orienteering world..

BOF have been so bad over the last few years in managing to communicate their reasoning for anything they wished to introduce, to try at this stage to get the membership to accept a substantial rise in membership levy to sustain the international programmes is likely to fall on many "disinterested" ears.

BOF I believe have become detached from the grass roots membership; they now face an up hill challenge.

[Scott]

Clive - you are right, of course. For far too many orienteers, BOF remain some shadowy "Them" who exist through third-hand reports of occasional unpopular decisions.

To be fair, although the transparency, membership-engagement and communication of the BOF decision-making process could still be much better, it is gradually improving. Hopefully some valuable lessons have been learnt from the three/four levels shenanigans.

And I think BOF are getting better at self-promotion when it comes to the benefits of some of the excellent development work that is going on under BOF guidance and funding.

Of course, the benefits of development work are relatively transparent: if BOF gives funding and support for a project that brings your club twenty new members, most people would agree it to be a Good Thing: more people=more fun(=more volunteers to help with the boring jobs)

Using membership money to fund the international programme, by contrast, will be much harder to sell to the general orienteering public, simply because the benefits to the wider sport are not as immediately obvious.

[andypat]

Scott - I think thats a pretty good summary of what most "ordinary" orienteers feel. Probably those who have been involved in some way with elite squads in the past or directly with other major BOF initiatives have a better insight, but not the ordinary punter.

Until recently I'd really no idea at all who anyone from BOF was or what they did. And I do read focus - but it seems a bit removed from me as an individual.

I was then volunteered to plan the sprint selection races for WOC at Erskine and as a result met the likes of Gareth Candy, Dave Rollins and Dave Peel and what a decent bunch of guys they are. Its just a shame we dont get to see more of them up here as they make a very good "face" for BOF and what goes on at the elite level.

I have to say I also have a better understanding of the elite men and women through that event - and would be supportive of any initiative that supports them as a result!

I think BOF does have a hard job on its hands managing the expectations of the orienteering masses. We orienteers arent the easiest to please, with a tendency to over analyse decisions, and some of us are quite opinionated and set in our ways. BOF probably could do a bit to improve on communications - not so much the news side of thigs, but regards internal comms and the process of change. I'd certainly tackle this before thinking about appointing a fund raiser. Do we really need someone who has to raise £30k just to cover their salary - theres a fair few duffers out their in the fundraising world I can vouch for that!

[SeanC]

Yes, I would agree. The more individual clubs know of those involved in the international program the more supportive they will be IMHO. Also as it's a small sport, and most will know someone who is, has been, a participant or parent of someone in the international program. Most will feel that a functioning international program is something we need to make us a sensible sport, rather than just a pastime like Rogaining.

However the reality of club administration (from my own experience) is thinking of ways of developing/increasing membership/participation, or just keeping a club going without significantly increasing membership or entry fees. Perhaps entry fees could be higher in some cases, but even if fees to go up there are other things clubs might spend money on which (privately) they might see as being more beneficial in the short term: maps, advertising, equipment... and in many small clubs, short term counts as survival is often the name of the game.

One idea is for clubs to have a designated athlete from the international program who might help clubs with publicity, coaching and development. A typical small club has a membership made up mainly of over 40's with a highest ranking of about 500. Any keen juniors would probably be more inspired by a club elite runner, particularly if they can offer occasional coaching. Also committed elite orienteers who command respect and have new ideas could have a big impact on club development. Anyone who orienteers in Kent will know this.

Such a program, or other ways for clubs to see more direct benefit, would make it easier to equate international program funding with short term club development, and then clubs are more likely to agree to a (probably still limited) increase in funding for the international program. But I don't know how practical it is where most are located in Sheffield or Edinburgh, also all this coaching, development work and fundraising could get in the way of training and competing. However even a yearly coaching session and 1 visit to a club meeting to discuss ideas could be really beneficial for my club and very well received.

[Clive Coles]

Agree with you Andypat...

Many ordinary members really have no idea at all who anyone from BOF is or what they did. They do read focus - but it seems a bit removed from them as an individual.

I also agree that once you get involved you find out the depth of commitment that key individuals make to our sport. It's such a shame communications down to the clubs through the Associations is so "hit & miss".

In the days of Council we did have a channel of communication from the Executive to the grass roots.Association Chairmen provided the link. This was replaced by a Board of elected Directors. By so doing we disbanded the body where delegates represented each region.

The new set up has overcome some of the problems of the old system ~ the sport has been moved forward by unclogging the decision making side of things. There have been some good governance decisions though in the case of the Event Restructuring, BOF failed to carry the membership with them.

Effective Change management can only be smooth if there is buy-in at all levels of an organisation. BOF tried to dictate the agenda ~ they came unstuck.

Focus can communicate news, decisions and rules ~ it does not have the space to explain the background and reasoning behind decisions. You need face to face discussions to achieve acceptance of new ideas.

To achieve acceptance I think you need a delegate conference which involves all Regions. This needs to be managed in such a way that delegates feel they are contributing to the evolution of the recommendations. Such conferences must not just be convened to tell representatives what has been decided.

[Mrs H]

Sean - do you mean like clubs could adopt an elite runner - that has a lot of interesting and rather fun implications - might even lead to a football-style transfer market when the Compasssport cup comes round - I'm only half joking here

[andypat]

Good one Mrs H - I'd like to see how that market developed. I'm not sure elites would necessarily command the highest prices either. I could see a bit of competition in the bidding for, say, a decent W65, or maybe a job lot of half a dozen mixed juniors

[SeanC]

ha ha - yes that could be fun. I wonder how much we would have to pay to persuade anyone to be in our CSC team?

Sponsoring an elite runner might be a method of raising some money, but I'm really thinking of the scenario that there is a proposal to raise more significant sums through a levy increase, say 50K. I expect a vocal minority at club level who will campaign against this. We have seen what a vocal minority can do with the 3/4 level stuff, so if the proposal was combined with something to sweeten the pill, such as international orienteers offering coaching and development assistance to clubs, it would have more chance of being passed. Perhaps others could come up with ideas?

A levy increase + some effective fundraising and there may be enough money for an international program.

[SJC]

We have seen what a vocal minority can do with the 3/4 level stuff.

I presume the vocal minority you are referring to were the members of the Board.

[andypat]

Now thats a bit cynical!

There were plenty of people (myself included) who were happy to let the three tier system run until it got going to give it a chance in the interests of a period of stability. But thats not what this thread is about....

[mharky]

Having events run by, and profits given to, the squad are not a new idea. I remember this being discussed back in 06 or 07

[AndyC]

Also been done locally by CLOK (and I think NATO but I may be wrong) to fund the NE Junior Squad -same principle but targeted at future elites we hope