How should we finance orienteering

[Paul Frost]

Perhaps this thread needs to be split into two.
One for clubs that are in more rural locations without any major centre of population and a membership below 150 (14 out of the 19 Scottish clubs) and the rest.

West Cumbria OC, with about 300 members, a small geographic area containing a vast quantity of quality orienteering terrain and is a popular holiday location are in a very unique position. I'm sure that a lot of work has been done over the years to get to the current situation and good for them, but no matter how much effort many clubs put in they will never get to be in WCOC's position. So we shouldn't set the guidelines/rules to suit them (or any other large club) at the expense of the many smaller clubs.

[Clive Coles]

We are obviously in a different league to RJ

Our club event pyramid for 2011 looks like being

Six very casual mid-week level D's Pin punches, kites or plastic cups as control markers. Flat Entry fees £1 (50p for juniors) ~ no non-member surcharging. A bit of fun for a Summer evening primarily aimed at club members but open to anyone else who wants some exercise.

Two CATI's level D SI Entry fees ( yet to be finalised ) in region of £4 (£2 for juniors). £2 non-member surcharge will apply.

Four 8 colour-coded ranking events level C (SI). One of these colour-coaded events will be our EA league event for the season. The EA League always used to be scored at District events before the introduction of 3-tiers and now we have 4-tiers i expect the League to mainly comprise Level C fixtures. Entry fees for these events probably £6 (£3 for juniors). £2 non-member surcharge will apply.

It is unlikely we will stage a level B in either 2011 or 2012. We may however be co-operating with other clubs to stage a Urban Nopesport Level B event in one of our Suffolk Market Towns in 2013.

Although I agree conformity across the counrty is a desirable objective I am not sure it will ever be attainable. When do two or more orienteers ever agree on anything ?

I think the bigger obsticle is the divide between big and small clubs. Small clubs are more focused on survival rather than trying to emulate the bigger players.

[LostAgain]

It is difficult to discuss how we fund orienteering without looking indepth at the cost.
The cost of an event:

1. Mapping costs to be recouped over a predetermined number of uses
2. Event expenses
3. Land use charge
4. Parking charge
5. BOF Levy
6. Club running costs (including Junior subsidies, Compass Sport cup fees etc)

If you breakdown the event fees as above then Profit is not necessary. You just have costs which need to be met.

Of course achieving these will be dependent on ability to forecast numbers attending the events.

The BOF levy can be quite a significant and controversial cost.

We have always seen Orienteering as a weekly sport for the family. The historical cost structure has enabled us to do this. I certainly do not want to see any further increase in event levy. A full and frank discussion is needed on what we need from BO at Matlock before increasing their budget.

[Paul Frost]

If you breakdown the event fees as above then Profit is not necessary. You just have costs which need to be met.

The profit from an event is what enables clubs to replace equipment, or subsidise juniors, the more profit you make the more you can do. It's not evil to make a profit, it's what you do with it.

The BOF levy can be quite a significant and controversial cost.
We have always seen Orienteering as a weekly sport for the family. The historical cost structure has enabled us to do this. I certainly do not want to see any further increase in event levy. A full and frank discussion is needed on what we need from BO at Matlock before increasing their budget.

Increases in the levy would be offset by reduced membership charges.

But I now wonder, if RJ is an "average " member and is going to 40+ events a year they probably prefer the larger membership fee, as apportioned over a large number of events it would be cheaper. Whilst those in smaller clubs in more remote locations can't attend that many events without significant travel cost/time, so the membership cost divided by events attended is greater.
But I suspect that the number of people doing 40+ a year are in the minority.

[graeme]

Interesting question Paul. As usual, nobody is tackling the interest word "we". Who, exactly, is we? We the competitor, we the club, or we the BOF.

Personally, I fund orienteering by going to work on weekdays, and via my taxes to government grants. This is not such a trivial observation: the sport can only survive through members with disposable income.

AFAIK, most clubs seem to have reasonably sound finances. This suggests that we is the club. Despite rather strange accounting procedures whereby they fund mapping/capital equipment from a "major" event then recoup it through reusing the map (which they now think is free) for local events.

We the BOF doesn't seem to cut it. Everyone seems to regard BOF (or SOA) levy as a cost. But for "we the BOF" it isn't a cost, it's the distribution of the profits. Why are volunteers happy to make money for "we the club" and disgruntled about making money for "we the BOF"?

I think there won't be a "we the BOF" until issues like I raised here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10580&p=115668&hilit=bof+accounts#p115668
are much more openly discussed. In times of zero funding, it seems that doing so is much more in the interests of "they the BOF" than "we the members". (I don't detect government enthusiasm to pay for a bunch of middle-aged, middle-class folk and their kids to do something that they enjoy)

Inter alia, we the SOA hire a professional officer specifically to do the jobs volunteers don't want to do (I hope you read the job description carefully, freefall ), fund large mapping projects for use of all clubs, buy and maintain SI kit so that every little club doesn't need to by and keep its own and work with government bodies to achieve things like the right of access to go orienteering whenever and wherever we please Even if we're too well behaved to actually force that issue.

[Red Adder]

Re cost of kit - to have a realistic event iventory

If you use SI (ie like much of England) to put on a CAT C event without really restricting a planners flexibility I reckon you need

60 controlls (@ 100 + £ 20 for stake)

9 master boxs (ditto)

around 100 hireable dibbers (@ £30 each - Series 5)

a couple of printers (£ 100)

a couple of decent lap tops ( £ 800)

which is around £ 12k

The "small event" start up packs are about £ 2.k but you only get 10 controls - not really enough for a Cat D. (eg on our Summer Series we always have 17-20 sites so that we can have a TD2 and a TD3 course).

With a three year battery life thats still £ 400 a year maintence - and then there is replacement of laptops (£100-£ 200 pa) and if you loose kit (we had 7 "moved" at our last event - all eventually recovered) its about £120 a pop.

Its all serious wonga for a small club.

[Freefall]

I hope you read the job description carefully, freefall

Many of us have probably wondered how much we might have earned at consultancy rates for all the hours we have put into the sport! Thank goodness for volunteers - I expect some of my time will still be volunteering e.g. Northern Champs which have already taken up about 7 man days

[Paul Frost]

When I used the term "We" I was thinking "We orienteers".
But Graeme raises interesting viewpoints about who "we" think "we" are.

I'm not sure about "clubs having reasonably sound finances", I suspect that they are not in debt, but I know that some clubs have much larger reserves than others. Some spend it as soon as they accumulate it and others keep accumulating, whilst others never manage to accumulate in the first place.

[SeanC]

The SI "training" kit is better value. I can check with our equipment officer, but I think it was in the region of about £3,000 for a 30 control kit. It has it's plus and minus points, but we find 30 controls is enough for our local events (typically a Blue/Light G/Orange/yellow or a 20 control score event). We borrow/hire from other clubs for district/regionals, but this is only 2 events out of about 30 per year.

3,000 is still a lot of wonga for a small club. For about 5 years we shared with Saxons reducing the cost, and last year we put in a grant application for our own kit. It was easier than I thought, but there's definately money out there... even now. I think a small club wanting SI kit to put on more and better local events is an easy sell. £3K is small beer in sports development... you're not after a new astroturf laying or anything.

So a way forward for small clubs that want their own SI kit.

- Think about doing less, expensive 7/8 course events, and more, cheaper 4 course or less local events.
- Chat up the neighbours and see if you can do a deal to split costs.
- Apply for grants. BOF development officers should be able to advise.

[awk]

In terms of event pyramids. (hopefully in the right discussion this time)
3 Level B events (Regional League) .....
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.

I think this remains part of the problem that has been inherent throughout the whole change to 4 tiers - different people have very different perceptions of what Level B should be - and that hasn't changed even with rules/guidelines attempting to define. Personally, I think there are too many Level Bs currently on the cards. Just because an event is a regional league, shouldn't make it Level B, not least because they are not events that need national fixtures authorisation.

[ryeland of doom]

Orienteering doesn't need to be cheap. In fact, being cheap might put people off, as it might lower their expectations.

Has anyone raised the point that high costs put a lot more people off. It is a barrier, and one which is going to get higher for a lot of people right now. There is a correlation between shiny expensive things and fashion. Beware of hitching your wagon to the affluent trendies, they will move on.

I do accept of course, that costs are rising - covering costs is acceptable, Gucci pricing to attract the In Crowd is not.

[Clive Coles]

And this is where we agree AWK

Just because an event is a regional league, shouldn't make it Level B, not least because they are not events that need national fixtures authorisation.

It was the authorisation issue that convinced me to become a 4-tier advocate. The "directive" that suggested that regional leagues should become level 2 events was the final straw. In fact. if some would have had their way, many more of our old District events would have been upgrated to Regional event status. This passed the authority to stage such events to the National Fixtures committee ~ the associations were effectively being asked to give up direct control of their association programme.

Had we not changed this would have been the first planning cycle when the reality sunk in. The National Fixtures committee would now have been swamped with Sunday morning events to authorise for 2012 ~ they would not have been able to "see the wood for the trees". (sorry ... the thought just seemed appropriate).

What a waste of their time ~ they should be focusing their energies on resolving clashes between events which draw large attendencies.

What 4-tiers has done is give authority powers for the association programme to Association Fixture secretaries. They, together with the clubs fixture secretaries, are responsible for the timetabling of regular events within their region.

I also agree with you AWK ~ there is a danger that there will still be too many level B events on the cards. Level B fixtures need to be events that justify that status.

I haven't yet seen the new rules and guidelines that presumeably come into effect tomorrow. I hope they are stricter that the old Level 2 rules. These were so flexible you could use old maps (with several revisions by diferent planners at previous events) on overused areas and call it a regional event providing you provided the appropriate services in the assembly/parking area. I believe we compromised our standards ~ Regional events became run of the mill.

Let's ensure we make all our Level B events in the future worth travelling to.

[Mrs H]

Whether I/we like it or not - finance by levy is the only fair and logical way to finance the sport. I think the levy-dodging that Paul refers to earlier is an historic attitude which arose because people questioned whether we were getting value for money from BOF for the levies which were being paid to them.* It may still be a valid question. I would prefer to see clubs responsible for paying levies to BOF and allowed to raise the money however they saw fit (not necessarily by event levies or membership charges - but possibly other more creative ways) and BOF continuing it's move towards transparency and accountability on how the money is being spent.

*for instance I'm not quite sure how I felt putting in many hours of fairly ground breaking development work being approached by a neighbouring paid development officer for details of what i was doing and how I was doing it - rather than the other way round.

[Spookster]

Orienteering doesn't need to be cheap. In fact, being cheap might put people off, as it might lower their expectations.

Has anyone raised the point that high costs put a lot more people off. It is a barrier, and one which is going to get higher for a lot of people right now. There is a correlation between shiny expensive things and fashion. Beware of hitching your wagon to the affluent trendies, they will move on.

I do accept of course, that costs are rising - covering costs is acceptable, Gucci pricing to attract the In Crowd is not.

I'm certainly not suggesting we need Gucci pricing to attract an "In Crowd". But nor do I think that changing the price of the small/local/beginner type event from £2 to £4 is a barrier.

[Paul Frost]

Can we try and stay off the 3/4 tier level issues as they are not directly part of the financing discussion.

Has anyone raised the point that high costs put a lot more people off.

It's not about creating an artificial high cost, it's about charging a realistic rate for what it costs to put on an orienteering event.

At the moment a lot of clubs are benefiting from huge amounts of cash from various third parties (lottery grants etc.) to pay for everything from new kites, electronics, mapping through to adverts in local papers. EckO has received tens of thousands of pounds over the last few years, we could never have generated even 10% of that income from event profits.

Maybe a small number of clubs (like WCOC) can generate enough income from events to be self sufficient, but I suspect there are very few clubs that could.

Mrs H mentions about the work she put in as a volunteer, and this may be another area where things are changing.

We all know about the demographic time bomb and the average age of orienteers. I suspect that in the coming years it will get more difficult to find volunteers to take on those things that take up a lot of time (mapping, planning, organising etc.). Due to the social demographic of orienteers, they are more likely to be "cash rich, time poor", so time consuming voluntary work doesn't fit in well with a happy family life.

We are currently enjoying the benefits of the "baby-boomer" generation, with many of our key people having taken early retirement and happy to give vast amounts of time to the sport. Look around your club and think about what jobs/roles have been done by people not working now and who would do them if they all disappeared. So "we" may end up having to pay people to do many of the things done by volunteers at the moment. I think mapping has moved in that direction already, as it is very time consuming and takes time to accumulate the skills to do it.