Free Orienteering

[AndyC]

This came into my twitter feed

Harley O'Quin ‏@HarlequinsOC 18h

Free orienteering in Perry Hall Park on Wed: meet @ moat between 6 & 7pm @PerryBarrEOO @Amy_Kular @villamk1 @urbanfitnessgb @dharmesh_rajput
Retweeted by British Orienteering

If it is what it says it is it looks like a brave exercise -can anyone from quins elucidate
(MrsH or Adrian perhaps)

[Mrs H]

Nothing to do with me - I live 60 miles away. According to the HOC website it's a summer evening event £3/£1 and Adrian is the organiser.

[Marian]

There's a free event in Perry Hall Park - organised in conjunction with the friends of the Park - as well as the HOC Summer Evening Event which starts from the Alexander Stadium and is our usual £3 / £1.

Andy - why do you think it's brave? it's not the sort of area / course / event that established orienteers are going to flock to and surely if the organisers are inundated with beginners they'll be delighted to recycle maps!

[AndyC]

Because of a) precedent b) if it is an event you'll pay levy to BO mking a certain loss on the event ( I presume it is registered as an activity)

[aiming off]

It's just in time, as Perry Hall Park turns into a giant car park for the England Schools Athletics Championships on Friday and Saturday.

£5 to park your car in Perry Hall Park, so this is a bargain.

[Marian]

fair points both Andy. Can't answer for the levy / registration as I'm not sure exactly whose umbrella it's being organised under.

"Precedence" is an interesting one. On the one hand, if something is free then it is not valued, so we should always charge if only a token amount. On the other hand, if you're trying to rope in passing dog walkers / families out for a stroll then having a free activity will hook in more people who may then decide to try it for real. So I think free is fine as long as clearly a taster. (plus other specifics like rewarding helpers / clubs paying relay fees)

[AndyC]

As I said "brave" - I might usefully have added "bold" because I'm keen to see anything that increases participation -so more strength to the bow.
(I'll point out that the tweet represents an "offer to the world" in legal terms and might imply that any HOC orienteering in Perry Hall Park tomorrow is free -too far from NATO Club Night for me to test that claim even if my knee allowed)

[Red Adder]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a free event if the aims are clear and it is also stated that the free aspect is a special case and normally an appropriate charge is made. This is how I started our Summer Series 5 years ago. I wanted to gauge if there was any demand for simple, very low key courses on small / marginal areas (our previous attempts at training evenings having petered out after varying degrees of success) and the idea of something free for club volunteers, even if only for one season, was also appealing.

The turnout was reasonable and even exceeded my hopes (including having decent support from surrounding clubs). I was apparent people did want a bit of gentle Summer competition where traveling distances were low but maps and course quality were high. {All maps are overprinted and either completely new / revised each year - all events have a controller]. For subsequent years we have taken, as intended, a modest fee (£1 / £2) to cover costs, and as all the volunteers have not taken any fees / expenses, have generated actually small surpluses.

[Adrian]

Two years ago I organised a week of free events in Birmingham parks. It went well, I think there were 200 participants over the five days, mainly newbies, and BOF were happy. A few months later I discovered at a WMOA committee meeting that BOF had decided to change the levy system and charge a levy on every event. When I said, well what about free events, the gentleman from BOF who was sitting in on the meeting said he'd never heard of free events, and BOF hadn't considered the existence or possibility of free events in making their decision. Brilliant.

1. Generally speaking, I agree with the idea of charging a fee for every event and charging a levy for every event. There are good reasons for both. But I would've been happier to accept an (ahem) democratic decision that was based on a complete consideration of the facts.

2. In a relatively deprived urban area like Birmingham and the Black Country there will always be situations from time to time where it's appropriate not to have an entry fee. Luckily Harlequins is the kind of nice club that is willing to take the levy on the chin, if it means that we can increase participation in the sport.

p.s. I was going to do another free park-O week this summer, but I changed my mind.

[Red Adder]

Adrian,

I disappointed but not surprised that BOF had not thought of the existence of free events. Their handling of the levy was nearly the final straw for me. I am entirely happy with the principles of the levy but strongly disagreed with it flat rate implementation with Cat D and Cat B paying the same amount, especially when at the same time BOF wanted volunteers to come up with initiatives to increase participation through low key events. What really annoyed me was my attempts to put my point of view and discuss the changes with BOF management was totally ignored - it was as though for those who orienteer and therefore why BOF exists at all - the competitors and volunteers who do 95% of the work - didn't count.

This behaviour has become all too typical form BOF over a variety of issues, and I know of several experienced people, who are in reality the bed-rock of the sport, have had their last-straw moment and have been lost to the sport.

Chris Brasher hated the attitude of the distant blazers who ran AAA and so fought hard to keep O independent. In particular the ethos that those that ran the sport should be participants. It has taken 50 years and come by different routes but there are worrying signs that BOF has lost its way and is becoming too detached from the sport it represents.




(and I'm all too aware that quite a few experienced O people

[Glucosamine]

In particular the ethos that those that ran the sport should be participants.

Was it not more codified than just an ethos? Seem to remember a thread comparing this to what happens in fell running. Is there not still a 'should be participants' clause buried somewhere in the rules / constitution? And if not, then when was the requirement put to sleep?

[alanbrett]

CHIG's orienteering tasters, registered again this year with Join-In UK as part of their weekend (end July) will be free, but I believe we have registered these as activities, and will be in effect a promotion of permanent courses, with participants receiving tips from clubs members before trying to locate some of the permanent course controls.

But for events such street-o's and small local events, charges have generally increased by £1pp this year to cover the levy.

[Red Adder]

Discussed the "must be a participant" rule with some of the longer standing Oers yesterday and the feeling was that to be on the National Committee you did once have to be an active competitor, and possibly you even to Gold or Silver standard. This bar had certainly been lowered to active participant by the early 90's, and probably quietly dropped completely 10-15 years ago.

I accept that their will be some roles which just can't be adequately filled from the O community, and the exact roles will vary over time. However, if the sport is to retain its unique identity I would have thought that it is essential that the National chair and the majority of the governing body must be currently or very recently active, preferably competing or otherwise involved say 20 times a year at a reasonable standard.