Membership and levy proposal

[graeme]

Point of fact – Most of the staff posts are not supported by member funds...

Thanks to a rather dubious piece of hypothecation. The external income is for whatever BritishOrienteering choose to bid for. The board chose to bid for money to spend on staff rather than ... (you can finish the sentence for yourself)

Sport England is committed to helping people and communities across the country create sporting habits for life.
This means investing in organisations and projects that will get more people playing sport and creating opportunities for people to excel at their chosen sport.

When reporting back to SE, one hopes that BO have a better narrative than "we spent your money on office staff and left it up to volunteers to get more people playing sport and create opportunities for people to excel ".
...and I'm sure they do: Mike's a smart guy

[Lard]

Mike has a job to protect.

[SeanC]

I didn't get the feeling from the Focus article that his job would be at risk should orienteers not provide the 90K?

It would be natural to be loyal to staff he manages though.

[daffdy]

The board chose to bid for money to spend on staff rather than ...

...have British Orienteering member funds bankroll the back office staff required to run the SportEngland funded programmes?

And make the most of the opportunities available to support orienteering?

[roadrunner]

People often complain that increased fees would put people off, which may well be the case, but I thought it would be interesting to compare them against my other sport, athletics, assuming a family with two children between 11 and 16. All based on a sample of one club and one event so not statistically significant, but I think reasonably representative. Examples are taken from the South of England, assuming all the family are club members and take part, and ignoring any joining fees and online entry charges.

Typical local 10k race with junior races: £32 in advance, £42 on the day
Typical Level C event: £30 in advance, £34 on the day

Typical orienteering club: £30 now, rising to £56 under the BOF proposals
Typical road running club: £102
Typical athletics club: £232

I don't know how other sports compare, but on that basis the new rates should still make orienteering pretty cheap. I do think there may be a need to re-introduce the non-member surcharge/member discount at events, though: for road races this stands at £2 or more (the odd unofficial event excepted), while for track and field membership becomes compulsory from April (and juniors pay the same as seniors, I believe).

[nooomember]

As expected, and as has been mentioned previously, someone has compared orienteering costs to other sports... That isn't the issue here, it is the fact they propose a 200% increase. Yes, the membership fee was significantly reduced a number of years ago, but that was offset by levy increases and in turn an increase in event entry fees.... Not they want to start increasing membership fee significantly and increase the levy further.
Just look at entry fee for the 'BoF' events, jk and British championships which have increased dramatically. Ordinary events will follow soon.
Please attend the age and vote 'NO'.

[maprun]

Our triathlon club is £192 a year if you go for the full works, but it includes 104 coached sessions a year in an Olympic Pool and 52 in a 25m local school pool a year in that price. A no brainer if you want to improve your swimming. I joined for three months and improved greatly in the slow lane.

Local cycling club £15 a year, £2 per 10 mile time trial to members, open to all comers for £4. It is almost dying on its feet now, as members do not consider they should put back into their sport whilst they are enjoying it.

British Cycling, have 10% off certain major bikes shop chains including the shop sale price (pays for your membership in one large purchase) and cheap insurance, essential if you race.

[roadrunner]

Just look at entry fee for the 'BoF' events, jk and British championships which have increased dramatically. Ordinary events will follow soon.
Please attend the age and vote 'NO'.

I agree, they're a lot more expensive than they used to be: at the earliest closing dates it was £23.50 for the BOC and £50 for the JK (3 events). But a smallish half marathon typically costs about £24, and the big events (e.g. Bath Half, Reading Half, London Marathon, Great North Run) more like £40 (can't give an exact figure as entries are closed), so are the costs that unreasonable, bearing in mind these are supposed to be the premier events?

[daffdy]

As expected, and as has been mentioned previously, someone has compared orienteering costs to other sports... That isn't the issue here, it is the fact they propose a 200% increase. Yes, the membership fee was significantly reduced a number of years ago, but that was offset by levy increases and in turn an increase in event entry fees.... Not they want to start increasing membership fee significantly and increase the levy further.

Yes! I agree with you! The membership fee was reduced a few years ago and it was offset by a levy increase. The 2012 proposal was intended to be 'revenue neutral' (although it actually turned out to be slightly revenue negative as I recall).

Now there's a funding hole to fill, so there's a proposal for a 'revenue positive' adjustment of the membership fee to increase the contribution of orienteers to the orienteering national governing body.

Just look at entry fee for the 'BoF' events, jk and British championships which have increased dramatically. Ordinary events will follow soon.
Please attend the age and vote 'NO'.

May I respectfully disagree? I don't really see how this is linked to the membership/levy proposal. Though I suppose it would be reasonable to increase entry fees by 10p to account for the proposed increase in levy.

British Cycling, have 10% off certain major bikes shop chains including the shop sale price (pays for your membership in one large purchase) and cheap insurance, essential if you race.

Well, if it's discounts you're after there are loads available via the membership page of the British Orienteering website. I know quite a few people who save more than their membership fee (sometimes more than triple their membership fee) with one large purchase, using Pete Bland/SportsShoes/Up&Running etc discounts. And British Orienteering membership includes an element of public liability insurance when you're racing... Forgive me, I'm not sure what point you're making?

[SeanC]

Figures update alert.

All along I've been working on the assumption that BO wants to raise £90K per year to fund its operations in. But as maprun points out in another thread, SportEngland will be funding the first 3 months of 2017. So for 2018 even more money will be needed, maprun estimates the 2018 additional bill will be 140K. Assuming that also goes on membership, the back of the envelope calculations is that means another £2 from juniors and £5 from adults, total difference from now = £5 juniors, £15 for adults.

So the 2018 fees would look like this, assuming clubs and regions keep their fees as now.

SAX Family membership (for 2 adults, 2 children) £40 now. £80 in 2018
SAX Senior membership. £20 now. £35 in 2018.
SAX Junior membership. £9 now. £14 in 2018.

MOR Family membership, 2 adults, 2 children: £28 now. £68 in 2018
MOR senior membership, £12 now, £27 in 2018.
MOR junior only membership, £2 now, £7 in 2018.

[maprun]

SeanC, sorry the shortfall annual amount is around £120k (not £140K) on core activities according to the proposal. The £20k difference might be on activities that will not be continued in the future. Other post now edited.

[maprun]

On page 5 of Focus, when the Sport England (SE) grant is stripped away on the Strategic Budget the projected loss is £50k less (£132,475 loss instead of £182,475) and according to the first paragraph of the commentary, BOF members currently only fund 2 positions and 16% of 4. Yet when you remove the SE grant and related expenditure and downsize the office overheads for the reduced staff and variable overheads relating to SE, we can afford 6 fully paid staff (my guess based on salaries of £175,622) and are £50k better off.

The only conclusion is the members are currently paying for a sizeable proportion of the fixed and variable overheads relating to the SE projects.

Am I missing something in this logic?

[SeanC]

Mike Hamilton has posted on the BO website. It's worth reading his views and the point about being a national governing body, IMHO anyway.

But, rather frustratingly, he doesn't answer his point 3 "Where might this funding come from? What are the choices?". Ie he doesn't explain why 90% has to come from a membership fee rise, or why we can't be offered a vote on different ways to pay, or at least some consultation.

I still think it's in everyone's interest that we make up the shortfall somehow, but a no vote is seeming more likely.

[pete.owens]

Why is it that every time I read something written by Mike Hamilton I find myself more likely to take an opposing view (even if I agreed with him in the first place)?

[maprun]

The answer to the question posed three posts above, I suspect is in how you apportion the fixed and variable overheads between SE and members services. I do not understand how the Board can hold the view that only 2 positions are currently fully funded and 4 16% funded, when you strip out SE income and costs and downsize the office for the reduced staffing (strategic budget), there is a £50k improvement and the members are fully funding around 6 staff. Full funding IMO is allocating the variable costs and a proper proportion of the fixed overheads between members services and SE projects.

I am not suggesting we will be better off without SE grants, just that the current apparent reliance on SE for member services is more about the perception of the Board and the definition of full funding.