How should we finance orienteering

[Paul Frost]

There have been a few threads that have touched on this issue:
Are the SOA declaring UDI?
BOF surcharge?
but it needs a specific debate.

My personal view is that we should reduce the membership fee to a flat nominal £10 year (with no extra club or association fees) and then make up the shortfall in income by levies. That way those that use pay most and it reduces the barrier to entry for newcomers and gets rid of the complicated Local/National membership.

We also need to change our attitudes a bit:

Why do people keep wanting to drive down the cost of orienteering?
Putting on an orienteering event has a lot of expenses and if the income is too low there will be no money for new maps, electronic equipment, training, coaching etc.
Cheap things are often perceived to have low value.
The argument about putting off newcomers to try it can easily be solved by offering reduced fees or free entry vouchers to genuine newcomers.
I've never been offered a reduced entry fee for a running race I have entered if I was a newcomer, in fact they charge extra as I'm not a member of a club!

Why is it acceptable to "avoid" paying levies by creative accounting?
The reason given for the changes in the way juniors are treated was because some clubs were "bending" the lines to avoid paying levies.
Entry fees or the level of event are "manipulated" to reduce the amount of levy paid.
It costs money to administer a sport and someone has to pay for that.

Can we rely on the continuing funding of our sport by third parties?
Whilst it's great to get loads of money from grants etc. (EckO has certainly been a beneficiary in the past), can/should we be reliant on other people funding OUR sport?
We need to start thinking about how we will finance new maps and equipment if we charge an artificially low entry fee and don't generate profits from every event.
The funding tap has already started to lose pressure and it's unlikely to come back soon.

Summary
It costs about £1500 for a professional O map A4 size and about 50p for every print of it.
A basic electronic timing setup for a club is £4000+.
Volunteers will spend many hours planning, controlling, organising for every event and they will have spent money on travel, phone calls etc. that should be re-imbursed.
Then we think about all these costs and decide to charge as little as £1 for an entry!
Add the fact that some clubs effectively discourage entrants to join the national body (and so provide income for the sport) by not charging any differential fees for non-members.
This is not sustainable.

[RJ]

The basic flaw in your thinking Paul is one of scale. The sport finds itself in a 'trough' at the moment. Membership numbers are low. Economies of scale are what we need to aim at. Membership.... membership.... membership!!

Those clubs that have an active and regular programme of events are seeing an increase in membership, an increase in participation, and an increase in overall profitability. An active club, IMHO, will have no problem keeping their bank accounts firmly in the black. And that will include the production of new maps etc etc.

The problem is not this surcharge on non member participation, or the local/national membership differential, it is one of 'numbers'. When we manage to double our overall membership (to 20k) the income flow will be more than adequate.

I think too many clubs spend too much of their time staging level B events. We all spend too much of our time at the top end of the event programme. We need to focus on the bottom of the pyramid and expand it dramatically. In fact, Rule 1.1.1 of the new 2011 BOF Rules states..... Any club wishing to stage a Level B event in 2012 must have at least 30 level D and three level C events planned for 2011.....

The way to increase income and sustainability is through involving many people in the sport. The government is heavily promoting sport and participation. Ride on that wave..... get orienteering on the lead surf board!!

[seabird]

We need to focus on the bottom of the pyramid and expand it dramatically. In fact, Rule 1.1.1 of the new 2011 BOF Rules states..... Any club wishing to stage a Level B event in 2012 must have at least 30 level D and three level C events planned for 2011.....

Is this wishfull thinkling RJ? (I keep checking the date for 1st April.)

It doesn't bear any relation to Rule 1.1.1. of the 2010 BOF Rules - the only copy I can find on the website.

And if remotely true, I don't think any club stages 60 level D events - so does that mean just 1 level B event per club who get over the hurdle?

nb. My club are one of the few on that basis that could currently stage a Level B event. (Still patiently waiting to see if the rejigged Fixtures list will eventually allow us to present any.)

[EddieH]

[quote]Any club wishing to stage a Level B event in 2012 must have at least 30 level D and three level C events planned for 2011[/quote]

Well whoever thinks that's a good rule is not living in the real World. Moravian for example is thriving and we put on a decent number of egular level D events, but 60 per year would stretch us way beyond our willing manpower. How can a club with 30 to 40 active members be expected to put on 60 per year. Come to think of it quite when would those 60 events be? - there is enough rancour in some areas with clubs taking custom away from others as it is.

Is there a Scottish club with the available manpower to put on 60 level D events per year? One thing's for sure - if there is one or two people will be working at a level that would be worthy of a decent salary.

[RJ]

Chinese whispers!!! Where did the 60 come from. Seabird perhaps extrapolated in the wish to put on 2 level B events. Would a club really wish to stage two level B events in any one year? If they would wish to do so... then that is the thrust of my arguement...... too much emphasis at the top end of the event pyramid!!

And there are clubs that stage pretty close to 60 level D events each year!

[Paul Frost]

The basic flaw in your thinking Paul is one of scale...
An active club, IMHO, will have no problem keeping their bank accounts firmly in the black. And that will include the production of new maps etc etc.

I agree that we need to get more members and get them paying towards the funding of the sport.

When we manage to double our overall membership (to 20k) the income flow will be more than adequate.

Even if EckO doubled it's membership to 120 and doubled the 14 events (would have been 16 but lost 2 to the weather early in the year) we put on in 2010 I still don't think they would generate enough profit to pay for many maps or equipment. Especially at the low entry fees that some people think are necessary.

I think too many clubs spend too much of their time staging level B events.

I don't think that there are that many clubs putting on level B events regularly for that to be true.

In fact, Rule 1.1.1 of the new 2011 BOF Rules states..... Any club wishing to stage a Level B event in 2012 must have at least 30 level D and three level C events planned for 2011.....

Can you provide the link to the supporting document please.
If this is true then your point about clubs spending too much time on level B events will be sorted, especially in Scotland, as I don't think any club has that number of events.

[RJ]

Even if EckO doubled it's membership to 120 and doubled the 14 events (would have been 16 but lost 2 to the weather early in the year) we put on in 2010 I still don't think they would generate enough profit to pay for many maps or equipment. Especially at the low entry fees that some people think are necessary.

With that level of activity why do you need money for new maps and equipment. Surely you have enough of both?

A lot of the maps needed for a low key level D structure can be very cheap to produce. Small areas that are quite adequate for these informal events need not support an M21E 14km course! The SI gear for this level is often satisfied with twenty controls and a few dozen ecards, with a mini printer for download.

Our informal level D events cost £2/£1 and generate a surplus of about £2k a year. This pays a subsidy for the coach to the CompassSport Cup and for the juniors to go to the Peter Palmer relays, plus two or three small maps for the next year's series.

The answer is in the level of activity at the base of the pyramid. A big level B event may generate a surplus of £2k, but I won't get a proper run because I will be 'helping' in some capacity. But the £2k generated at the Level D events has allowed me to orienteer fifty times, and plan once. So which one is the more sustainable.... on so many levels (sorry about the pun!!).

[NeilC]

In fact, Rule 1.1.1 of the new 2011 BOF Rules states..... Any club wishing to stage a Level B event in 2012 must have at least 30 level D and three level C events planned for 2011.....

Can you provide the link to the supporting document please.

Don't encourage him - it comes from the RJ rule book, nowhere else

[Red Adder]

I'm not sure about some of the figures

To get enough SI kit for Cat C event (would any clubs just intend CAT D ?) is nearer £ 12 k. Maintenance of the kit is not that cheap either - I doubt whether it would be possible on entry fees for all events at £1/£2.

An A4 map by a volunteer charging only petrol may be nearer £ 150 (depending on how close they live to the area). If they have the skills (and a lot do) the map will better than many professional ones as they have the time to take as long as it takes rather than having to work to a fixed commercial schedule. I suspect a lot of our smaller clubs survive on this basis.

One thing that bugs me about maps is going to an event with a premium fee (say £10 and up) and the map is not fully revised to the current date - this is something I do not find at all acceptable.

[RJ]

....To get enough SI kit for Cat C event..... is nearer £ 12 k. Maintenance of the kit is not that cheap either .....

A seven course colour coded event, a level C event, should get away with 40 odd controls. Closer to £3500 I think. Maintenance is minimal. £13 for a change of battery after three years??? A few dozen ecards for hire.

The sport is obviously very expensive to run in some parts of the country Red Adder. Perhaps that is why you get charged £10 for an event with a non-updated map. Spend the money on petrol instead and come to Cumbria for your O!!

[RJ]

Don't encourage him....

Thanks Neil

[Paul Frost]

With that level of activity why do you need money for new maps and equipment. Surely you have enough of both?

Not if we put on more events.
I don't want to run around the same map several times a year.

Our informal level D events cost £2/£1 and generate a surplus of about £2k a year.
The answer is in the level of activity at the base of the pyramid. A big level B event may generate a surplus of £2k, but I won't get a proper run because I will be 'helping' in some capacity. But the £2k generated at the Level D events has allowed me to orienteer fifty times, and plan once. So which one is the more sustainable.... on so many levels (sorry about the pun!!).

You are really lucky then if your club has 50 planners, so that you can all only plan once but put on 50 events. Plus get a level of attendance at every one of those 50 events that you put on to generate £2k profit.

Which club is this?

You forgot to provide the link to the 2011 rules that you quoted.

[Spookster]

It's an interesting question, and one that has become very important to the future of our sport. I think:

We need more participation, which may (or may not) require more membership. If the same membership orienteered more often, that would be good. If more people came into the sport, that would also be good. Whether or not these new people need to be members is less critical, though I'm sure members orienteer more than non-members.

Membership cost could be cheaper, or free, if we raise more money from participation levy instead. That's the way I pay for golf. I only play infrequently, don't want to pay the cost (or get the benefits) of joining a golf club, so I'm happy just to "pay and play" for the times I do participate. Other sports and hobbies have the similar models.

Events should form a "pyramid", with a lot of activity at local club level at the base, and the few national level events at the peak. I don't think that ratio is 30 D events per B event, but I reckon the numbers for SYO in 2011 will be something like 1 A, 2 B, 7 C, and about 20 D. Priced appropriately, all of them can contribute surplus income towards club development (maps, kit, training, junior support, etc).

The country hasn't got much money. OK, so we're not in such a bad state as Greece, Spain or Ireland, but basically there is less government money available to support sport, especially non-Olympic sport. We have to make our sport more economically sustainable.

Orienteering doesn't need to be cheap. In fact, being cheap might put people off, as it might lower their expectations. However, orienteering should provide good value, and that can be achieved for example by the simplest events at £3 or £4, as well as by Level A events (with top quality map, terrain, planning, organisation, competition and "extras") at £12 - £16. Of course with the increasing cost of travel, event entry cost is actually only part of the story (and why we need lots of local events, as above).

[RJ]

Membership cost could be cheaper, or free, if we raise more money from participation levy instead. That's the way I pay for golf. I only play infrequently, don't want to pay the cost (or get the benefits) of joining a golf club, so I'm happy just to "pay and play" for the times I do participate. Other sports and hobbies have the similar models.

Yes Spookster, but the weakness with the golf analogy is that the high membership fees pay for the professional upkeep of the greens etc. Orienteering doesn't subscribe to that model. We plan, organise every last detail of an orienteering event using volunteers.... actually..... using the bulk of the membership of the club to do all the jobs.

In fact, I would say that the health of the sport relies on the strength of the constituent clubs and their memberships. That is why local activity and local level D events are so important. That is where you get your club cohesion and your 50 planners for the annual series of events.

[seabird]

In terms of event pyramids. (hopefully in the right discussion this time)

Aire have 50 events lined up this year.

If we can get BOF Fixtures to reflect what we think is right, we will have achieved a pyramid (whether to RJ specifications or not I cannot be sure)

37 Level D events (Entry fee £2/£1) like RJ's events good moneyspinners. All done on local areas with next to no expenses, apart from club map printing costs.

10 Level C events attracting a regionwide participation, including a Schools Champs, 3 Urban races, and 2 Night Events. (Entry Fee £5/£2 These have recently just about covered cost)

3 Level B events (Regional League) (2 are on one weekend; does that still count as 2 events in this consideration?) Fees determined more by specific event expenses - but higher than level C (event costs are greater; remote locations mean larger officials expenses; equipment expenses (eg stiles and stile erection etc) ; map expenses (larger maps); larger land access expenses. These events rarely clear more surplus than the Level D events combined, and would be unviable at the rates we charge for Level C events - but there's no reason why all Level C events should be the same rate.

If I have read him right , RJ seems to be arguing for level C to be what we imagined Level 2 to be under the 3 tiered scheme, and seeking to subdivide what was Level 1- not I appreciate what he was arguing last year.

I would be happy with that if it is applied consistently across the country.

And to re-emphasise that apart from a small buffer for a rainy day, all the surplus is reinvested directly back into the sport.