Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012

[daffdy]

It must be quite frustrating for those who've worked on this proposal to read all of this emotional feedback when so few people volunteered to comment earlier in the review. To paraphrase Delia Smith "Where were you?"

I'm not questioning the reasons for a review, which are justified. But it must be quite frustrating for students who read the document that accompanied the initial request for comments, and believed it when they saw the assumptions facilitating discussion included "Juniors and students will continue to count as one-third of a senior for levy purposes in line with the decisions at the 2010 and 2011 AGM". Even after the club conference, there was apparently a "general agreement to continue with status quo
where this was concerned".

Mrs. H - you're description of BOF re students is inaccurate, at least from the development committee's viewpoint. The most recent meeting discussed I think two club nights targetting universities and agreed funding for a really good project that Bristol University OC proposed - that's only the bit of BOF I have any great knowledge about.

So British Orienteering are targeting two universities and helping Bristol. This is a Good Thing. But those are only three universities. Call it five if you include the EUOC / ShUOC Centres of Excellence. What they want to withdraw are things that help student orienteering everywhere, not just the few established clubs that BOF are working with. I don't feel like CUOC have had much support from British Orienteering, other than what they intend to withdraw and an offer of free publicity materials. Sadly, not one design was appropriate for the student market and we made our own.

[Paul Frost]

The only people demanding a simple levy system are the 100 or so people who have to deal with it. No-one else cares whether it's complicated or not.

It's not the levy that is complicated, it's the membership options that are difficult to explain or understand for prospective new members.
That's the driving force behind this proposal, making membership simple and cheap to encourage people to join. But you have to replace the lost income from somewhere, and the levy is the only other income source.

Most organisations have a fair and simple system of charging less for "concessions", and there's no reason why we can't do the same.

We are not only talking about concessions, we are talking about adjustments based on level of event as well.
So would you like to detail your alternative fair proposals that will be budget neutral, simple to understand and administer and not alienate anyone by income, age or location.

I'm no expert on students, but the proposals don't increase the fees for all students, only those 21 or over, but I don't know what proportion of students are 21 or over.

[kofols]

I see no fairness in small events being clobbered for the same amounts as big events, and clubs who put on a higher proportion of the smaller events being thus clobbered commensurately harder. The fair system to me would be a sliding scale.

But I see no fairness in people orienteering at smaller events and not paying their propootionate share of whatever the national cost is. And £1.30 is hardly "being clobbered".

Proportional or average share?

We didn't introduce flat levy system but my argument for sliding scale would be that local events as we have it are mostly for non-competitive members. Results aren’t so important to them and many of them don’t go on national events. I don’t see any justify reason why someone who participates only on local events (only member of local association) should pay something to cover national costs.

My assumption is that most people are willing to pay something also on local events for national cause if entry fees would be fixed for all races. Levy system which fall in our case was based on fixed entry fees for different classes and valid only for national events. Flat levy was divided on two parts: senior classes (1eur) and junior classes (0,5eur) valid for +M/W12. Clubs specifically said that levy shouldn’t be introduced for M/W10 and for local events. We estimated that with levy system we could lose our members because of shock effect, so we decided to use same avg. entry fees as we already have had and fix them. Participants don’t care who gets money but with fixed entry fees clubs give a change to their members to race on a reasonable entry fees. As I see now for our system fixed entry fees are still good solution but I would change flat levy into sliding scale.

Local
All classes = 4 eur / levy 20%

National
junior classes, open, students, pensioners = 8 eur / 20%
senior classes = 10 eur / 20%

[Gross]

Local
All classes = 4 eur / levy 20%

National
junior classes, open, students, pensioners = 8 eur / 20%
senior classes = 10 eur / 20%

Love it.... introduce the euro within BOF

[daffdy]

I'm no expert on students, but the proposals don't increase the fees for all students, only those 21 or over, but I don't know what proportion of students are 21 or over.

I can't say how representative we are, but two thirds of CUOC are M/W21.

[Paul Frost]

I don’t see any justify reason why someone who participates only on local events (only member of local association) should pay something to cover national costs

Because the national association provides the infrastructure that the sport needs to exist. Things like coaching schemes, rules, management, applying for funds from the government or other sources, co-ordinating events across the country etc.

I'm not sure about the distinction between fair, proportionate and average, but pose these questions:
The individual who only goes to a few events a year only pays a small portion of the total costs of managing the sport.
The individual that goes to dozens of events pays a higher portion of the total costs.
Is that fair, proportional or average?

Should the individual pay more because it's a bigger event?
They are already paying more because of the extras required at big events, like toilets and will have also paid a lot more for travel etc..

You could also argue that things like community-O cost the national association to administer. They have paid coaches that deliver the sessions and they have to be trained in the first place. We also pay for a full time development officer who's main role is looking after these schemes. Yet these "activities" will not pay any levy or contribute to the running of the sport, is that fair?

[SJC]

We are not only talking about concessions, we are talking about adjustments based on level of event as well.

If levies are based on event levels then expect most events drop to Level D.

The most surprising thing about the proposals is the fixed levy rate regardless of the number of competitors. This is akin to having a fixed rate of income tax regardless of how much or how little you earn. Whilst accepting that every competitor may have to pay something in order to balance the books, a lower levy for the first fifty competitors and a higher levy for the rest might be more acceptable.

[Paul Frost]

Whilst accepting that every competitor may have to pay something in order to balance the books, a lower levy for the first fifty competitors and a higher levy for the rest might be more acceptable.

How would it be "fair" for the 51st and later competitors to pay more, they aren't getting any more than the first 50 are they?

[madmike]

Rewarding the fiirst 50 people for entering early - seems fair enough

but I'm not sure that's what was meant

[greywolf]

Because the national association provides the infrastructure that the sport needs to exist. Things like coaching schemes, rules, management, applying for funds from the government or other sources, co-ordinating events across the country etc.

Does BOF do all these things (and everything else it spends its membership & levy income on) evenly across the country? (in which case, what exactly is the SOA membership fee and levy for?)
And if it doesn't, then why should those in areas BOF doesn't cover completely have to pay for services they don't receive?

I don't object to simplfying the membership structure, but I don't think slapping a 43% tax on local events is fair or proportionate

How would it be "fair" for the 51st and later competitors to pay more, they aren't getting any more than the first 50 are they?

Do you understand how the levy is collected?

[Oldman]

How would it be "fair" for the 51st and later competitors to pay more, they aren't getting any more than the first 50 are they?

Do you understand how the levy is collected?

I can't speak for Paul, but would it not be a good idea that clubs should show their entry fees clearly identifying how much of the fee was the BOF levy (eg entry fee is £6, of which £1.30 is BOF levy). This keeps everyone aware this is a per capita fee paid by each individual. which I think is "fair" despite what others suggest.

[Paul Frost]

Does BOF do all these things (and everything else it spends its membership & levy income on) evenly across the country? (in which case, what exactly is the SOA membership fee and levy for?)
And if it doesn't, then why should those in areas BOF doesn't cover completely have to pay for services they don't receive?

That's another issue that has already come in for heated discussion will no doubt come up again and again until it's resolved. I agree that it needs resolving, but suspect it's not going to happen in the very near future.
It's also for the regions/countries to get involved in the discussion to ensure that they get what they want as well as individuals.

I don't object to simplfying the membership structure, but I don't think slapping a 43% tax on local events is fair or proportionate

Well the % depends on the entry fee charged.

Do you understand how the levy is collected?

Yes, but I kept my example simple. I know that the levy should be divided equally between all entries, but if you don't know how many entries you are going to get it's not so easy to work out the total amount that will be due and then dividing that by the unknown number. So keeping the levy as 1:1 makes budgeting simple.

[RJ]

The debate is between leaving things as they are or changing to this alternative.

The consultation process seems to have produced this 'alternative system' thinking, but then I don't believe it!!

The current membership system can be made obvious and less cumbersome, but going to individual single memberships is mad. Families are the heart of the sport.

The membership system used to be maintained by membership secretaries in each club. If BOF want to save money then lets go back to that. The best way to get folk to join your club is to look them in the eye and ask them if they would like to join. Then explain the two levels of membership.... and collect their money. After all a 'club secretary/treasurer' currently works out the levy and arranges payment. The membership secretary can maintain the details on the BOF website in exactly the same way as the Fixture secretary maintains the club's events and results.

Loading a level D event with levy is mad. This is the bottom of the pyramid where new folk join in to sample the sport, learn how to orienteer and then practice their skills. Yes, the informal events should pay some levy.... as now, with the first 65 non-levied. However, I have argued in the past that all informal events should pay a basic £10 (say) to be registered on the system and then levy at the current level.

And..... asking school league events, where the sport is being introduced to pupils, to pay this levy will kill this development. School league events, certainly here in Cumbria have very large entries, and will be clobbered with large tranches of cash going out of the development fund that keeps the series of events going. Much more important to spend this money on toilets, facilities and prizes.

[kofols]

We have quite small operating system compare to yours but I can understand you. Locals are in majority as they were in our case and it is always the same in all sports. If people like elite sport, like professional services, like to help through levy system than I think you will find a way out to keep the level you have achieved. In our case clubs said no and that they don't want more from federation than just to keep recreational sport as it is. We have the system as we could afford it no more, no less.

Because the national association provides the infrastructure that the sport needs to exist. Things like coaching schemes, rules, management, applying for funds from the government or other sources, co-ordinating events across the country etc.

I thought that you have professionals for all these things and separate funds to cover all their wages. As I understand you all these things are necessary for clubs but clubs don’t want to cut here and in same time they are unable to work on these things a little bit voluntary. So clubs want to hold the high standard and services delivered by BOF but they don’t want to pay their share through flat levy also on local level. It seems to me unclear what are real priorites here? Apparently it looks that is still unsolved.

The individual who only goes to a few events a year only pays a small portion of the total costs of managing the sport.
The individual that goes to dozens of events pays a higher portion of the total costs. is that fair, proportional or average?

For me as a runner my first question isn't how much of total association costs I would cover with my levy in one or another example because I don't want to know how big amount of money must be raised all together. I just wouldn't want to pay same flat levy at different event levels because I don't get same service. If I must pay levy I want that system is also fair to me at all events.

You are looking from BOF' side and I’m looking from runners' side. I would say that in your example both pay proportional of total BOF costs. I said average but I should say same %. Someone before me mentioned VAT. What is wrong with this approach?

Should the individual pay more because it's a bigger event?
They are already paying more because of the extras required at big events, like toilets and will have also paid a lot more for travel etc..

I am not sure exactly if we talk about entry fees or levy. If I understand you correctly you want that runners at bigger races pay lower entry fee than today and same flat levy as locals on local events. Why? He can afford to travel, pay accomodation, etc but he is unwilling to pay extra £1-2 more for levy. Yes, it is more expensive for him to compete at bigger events as it is more expensive for our runners to compete at World cups or WOCs. Our runners would come to all races if they would need to pay only half of travel costs. I must say that this is not levy problem for me. Does this have dfferent meaning for you in comparision to your previous statement?

We can't build a national entry fee structure taking into account everyones financial status. There is no "fair" method of charging for anything.

My basis is fixed entry fees model with levy included. For me the only question is how high entry fees are right now and what are the most reasonable fees on all levels so you could have happy members and stimulate them to race more. And how to set appropriate levy scale (in %) to maintain all organizers happy. And that is all. So I don't see why he should pay more than today. Does levy already represent too high proportion in entry fee structure of bigger events or you would need to raise entry fees? Are organizers happy or unhappy about how they cover their costs?

Thanks to all for discussion. I must say that I’ve got information which I was looking for. As I am a little bit of intruder I will finish here. Being only a runner is far easier than organizer....or trying to develop non olympic sport.....

[Wayward-O]

So would you like to detail your alternative fair proposals that will be budget neutral, simple to understand and administer and not alienate anyone by income, age or location.

Unfortunately, BOF are the only people with the information to determine whether a proposal is budget neutral. Were we to be furnished with the information that BOF has at its disposal, we could make other proposals that would meet this requirement. Without it, we're a bit in the dark.