"how much should we pay BOF and why?"

[follyfoot]

"how much should we pay BOF and why?" was the title suggested for a new thread - so here it is.
But why not simply reduce the BOF wage bill?

[RS]

Again, sounds like a reasonable idea. Why do we need people to tell/advise us how to organise events we've run successfully for years? Why are full-time RDOs needed when part-timers did more work in less time? Less admin staff needed if Paul Frost's suggestion was acted upon etc, etc.

[Clive Coles]

My guess is, if it were ever possible to get the majority of our club orienteers to respond to this question, the answer would be "not alot". As it is the articulate opinions mostly tend to support the need to at least maintain the current revenue that membership and levy currently generates.

Over the last few years there has been a change in the balance between the larger events ( which generate most revenue for BOF) and the Local events which tend to be staged by clubs to just balance the books. Perhaps the silent majority are trying to tell us something.

Money is tight, family commitments are increasingly complicated ~ They are not motivated to drive long distances to attend the larger events; many folk just settle for local value for money orienteering.

The arguments seem to be being made to get the local orienteers to pay more so that BOF's revenue stream can be maintained. I think this is a misdirected way forward.

I believe we need to slim down our BOF budget to reflect what members are prepared to pay. I think the silent majority would prefer a more Club-centric focus with less centralised direction as to how clubs should run their affairs.

Over recent years we have moved away from being a federation. As a result BOF are now perceived as having become expensive, more directive , sometimes irrelevent and sadly remote from their grass roots. Those who beaver away on committees will know this not to be a true state of affairs but their efforts are falling to impress. Perception has become reality. We need to face up to this situation and cut back on our centralised costs. Trying to get more from the silent majority will not succeed.

[LostAgain]

I believe we need to slim down our BOF budget to reflect what members are prepared to pay. I think the silent majority would prefer a more Club-centric focus with less centralised direction as to how clubs should run their affairs.

This looks to be a very difficult task. Getting it to happen is like asking Turkeys to vote for Xmas!

[Oldman]

Why are full-time RDOs needed when part-timers did more work in less time?

Irrelevant in terms of the thread title, since we don't currently pay for RDOs, I think, Sport England does (and we don't have any, anyway - they're Participation Managers). http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... pment_team

[The Loofa]

The (part-time) RDOs were all made redundant last 31 March, and were replaced by 2 more full-time participation managers - to arrive at (by my reckoning) roughly the same salary cost. Perhaps irrelevant to this thread though as both RDOs and PMs were/are funded entirely by Sport England grant and not subs or levy.

[SeanC]

If we're serious about the "more people, more places, more podiums" vision, then the answer to "how much should we pay BOF and why?" is simply "How much money does BOF need to do its bit in achieving this?".

[Big Jon]

Check the breakdown of income/expenditure in annual accounts - the vast majority of funds come from lottery/UK sport/Sport England etc, the income from events and membership fees is pretty small proportion. Even halving the membership fee and halving event levies etc would not make a huge difference to turn-over, but would completely hamstring BOF as it would have very little discretionary income to play with as most outside funding is linked to specific projects etc. In the near future the outside funding is likely to be savaged - due to an obsession with Olympic sports and olympic sports only. If/when this happens then look forward to a major increase in levies and or membership fees AND a reduction in everything BOF does.

[SJC]

Even halving the membership fee and halving event levies etc would not make a huge difference to turn-over, but would completely hamstring BOF as it would have very little discretionary income to play with.

If BOF want to keep the discretionary income they have from membership and levies, or even increase this, then they need to clearly explain what this money is needed for. At the moment it is hard to understand what the general membership actually gets for its £200,000 pounds a year.

[PKJ]

I would assume that some of our £200k goes towards BOF employee's time and effort in getting our share of external lottery/UK Sport/Sport England funding. And, from what I can see, they've been pretty good at this.