We don't belong here.

[Meat Market]

I suppose my point in the previous post is that with eligibility rules there will always be exceptions which are viewed to be unfair unless the rules are so well established that they aren't questioned (such as voting in national elections).

I've got some sympathy with BOF since they were trying to correct a problem which was perceived to exist after a protest. But my own view is that unless you have an open championship (maybe with BOF membership required to compete as a condition) then you are always going to have exceptions for eligibility which are unfair. And I don't see any reason why not to have an open championship - the British Championships should be a competition of the best in UK on that day. If foreigners turn up on the day and are too embarrassed to claim the title then they have the option of declaring themselves non-comp.

[SJC]

I've got some sympathy with BOF since they were trying to correct a problem which was perceived to exist after a protest.

But the protest only came about because of BOF changing the rules in the first place. We survived for many years with eligibility criteria which included a residency clause, and, as far as I am aware, this policed itself without any problems.

[madmike]

There is some logic in this, but I would suggest that there is stronger logic in the following:

BOC is won by an individual, BRC is won by a club team. Hence, for BOC it should be the individual who meets the Britishness test, whereas for BRC it is the club. And it would be logical to define a club as being British just by the club's membership of BOF, irrespective of the composition of any of its BRC teams (assuming they contain bona fide club members)

[King Penguin]

A separate BEOC, without a thousand age class competitors,

... but the way entry fess for the"championships" have been ramped up they are in danger of not getting anywhere close to the numbers they desire because they are pricing many out of the event.

[Mrs H]

having missed the first entry date for the sprint and middles it was the cost of the entry which persuaded me not to go this year

[seabird]

A separate BEOC, without a thousand age class competitors,

... but the way entry fess for the"championships" have been ramped up they are in danger of not getting anywhere close to the numbers they desire because they are pricing many out of the event.

Entries to the Middle and Sprint seem pretty healthy nevertheless

Like Mrs H I missed the first deadline - but swallowed hard and entered the Sprint. Another £18 for Strensall , however brilliant the planning (and it probably will be brilliant), was a step too far. But that would probably have been true at £15 also.

On the main theme: I'm totally in the camp that membership of a British club should be the only, and easily checked, qualification. But then who wins a Championship is scarcely going to matter to me, being like most orienteers, just there to enjoy myself and make up the numbers.

[Oldman]

I asked a while back if anyone knew the insurance premium was - no one has had responded so I'll try to find out else where as I can't see it singled out in the budget papers - not that I'm good at that kind of thing - can anyone else see it?

Have you asked BOF directly for the info?

Perhaps we should have seen the writing on the wall when they chose to drop the word "Federation" because with the new super-committee set up and the loss of the club-region- board hierarchy to call it a Federation is tantamount to an infringement of the Trades Description Act

As John Morris went to considerable pains to point out at the Association/Club Conference (and, I seem to recall, somewhere here also), BOF has never been a real Federation, having as its members, individuals.

[Mrs H]

But the representation was through the clubs via the regional reps - that has now been removed.
Regarding the insurance premium - I said I'd try to find out didn't I? - just wanted to know if it was in the free public domain before I wasted anyone at BOF's expensive time.

[RJ]

.....BOF is turned into a self financing employment scheme and as such is actually quite successful. But it's got precious little to do with the sport or the members.

While I can see you might have a point..... I simply don't agree with you that 'BOF Office' haven't got the best interests of the sport at heart. In fact I would say that the fact that many of the staff at HQ are not actually orienteers is a really good thing. We should consider ourselves a sport first and orienteers second.

BOF have worked hard with the Sport England (or whoever) criteria to introduce the idea of Club Mark and the Club Night. While some may feel both of these things are a waste of a lot of time and effort..... once set up and working they generate a more effective, cohesive, forward looking/thinking and successful club. Many of the ideas that emanate from the various bodies advising the government are good. Club Mark and Club Night are two very worthwhile and effective ideas.

Over the years BOF have attempted to streamline orienteering so that it more closely mirrors other sports. The membership/levy proposal would appear to be one. The governance changes might be another. The event structure was another. We resist the changes and sometimes we stop or 'alter' them. BOF needs to listen more carefully to the resistance and objections that are out there; have a procedure to take account of the opinions, and show that they are listening. Proposals (and that is what they should be.... proposals) should be aired and members given the chance to comment. Written comments by email to HQ don't work, unless they are displayed on the BOF website, with names withheld perhaps, so that we can all see how the rest of the membership is thinking. BOF have a problem if they say they have consulted, this is what everyone said, and this is the conclusion. It just isn't transparent enough to give me confidence.

A lot of topics get discussed on here and often the conclusions are sound. Often, also, we end up with two (or even three!) camps with opinion split.... but that is a fact of life..... and in the end after a vote we live with the majority.

Maybe BOF are mulling over the eligibility rules and a changed position may appear..... you never know!!

[distracted]

A separate BEOC, without a thousand age class competitors, isn't particularly attractive to sponsors. Neither is an age class only competition. It needs the profile of the elite plus the numbers generated by the age classes to have any hope of finding a major sponsor for the event. The combined BOC/BEOC is here to stay.

A combined champs may have the overall numbers, but think about how companies advertise - by segregating the market and targeting specific groups, inevitably on an age/sex/wealth basis. Why would a company looking to appeal to the elites/athletic types want a load of families/vets/kids at the same event? etc.

[mharky]

Who are you trying to get sponsored by, SAGA or Inov8???

[Oldman]

Over the years BOF have attempted to streamline orienteering so that it more closely mirrors other sports. The membership/levy proposal would appear to be one. The governance changes might be another. The event structure was another. We resist the changes and sometimes we stop or 'alter' them. BOF needs to listen more carefully to the resistance and objections that are out there; have a procedure to take account of the opinions, and show that they are listening. Proposals (and that is what they should be.... proposals) should be aired and members given the chance to comment.

At least two of the proposals you quote were apparently the subject of considerable consultation. Both the membership/levy proposal and the new Articles were discussed extensively at the Club/Association conference of which clubs were given several months notice, the materials were on the web site, and the eventual proposals arose from discussions and input at that meeting and afterwards (with clearly much further member input, as the proposals have changed).

The change to an Events / Competitions Committee also brought in Association representation (a requested change from the Conference) for the first time in many years compared to the Events Committee which had no Association representation whatsoever [Mrs H to note] .

[Mrs H]

Your grasping at straw Oldman - I was referring to Council

[graeme]

Back to the original debate ... the biggest problem seems to be that the same Britishness test is used for BRC as is used for BOC, and that this causes real problems for some club relay teams.
There is some logic in this, but I would suggest that there is stronger logic in the following:
BOC is won by an individual, BRC is won by a club team. Hence, for BOC it should be the individual who meets the Britishness test, whereas for BRC it is the club. And it would be logical to define a club as being British just by the club's membership of BOF, irrespective of the composition of any of its BRC teams (assuming they contain bona fide club members).
So, maybe just changing the eligibility rules for BRC might provide a compromise solution which would be agreeable to the vast majority?

Yes yes yes!
Also, the individual eligibility doesn't affect what happens in the forest - everyone still gets to run at BOC, and bragging rights when they win. The relay ban forces clubs to change team compositions, and so actually prevents "foreign" people running the class they want.
BOF claim their position on BOC has majority support - there is at least a range of views. But I've never heard of anyone who supports the relay ban, and I'll bet my ill-gotten BOC medal they didn't ask that question.

[madmike]

Club Mark and Club Night are two very worthwhile and effective ideas

agree with you 50% RJ- one is classic politically correct bollox that makes no difference to the sport and the other is an effective idea!