Membership and levy proposal

[maprun]

The third installment from MH on how the funding can be raised is on the website and he mentions concerns about an increase in the levy putting people off level D events.

There have been discussions about other ways in which levy could be charged which might enable the lower levels of competition to maintain a relatively low levy whilst higher level events might be accepting of a higher levy. Unfortunately, the statistics make this a challenging task as participation is higher at local events. Based on the average participation figures over the last 3 years Level D is 43% of the total participation that pays levy, Level C 25%, Level B 21% and Level A 11%. It might be feasible to increase levy payable on UKOL races.

The Board considered raising the levy more significantly and concluded that the impact of a significant increase in levy might be to reduce participation particularly at local events (Level D).

With option 3 (notional levies of £8 adult & £2.50 junior), rather than having a uniform £2 levy, having different levies for level D events could be considered. For example, 35p more on level D events and 1.05p on level C and above, would give levies of £1.60 and £2.30 and would achieve the same total levy income. £1.50 and £2.25 might be easier to sell and would fall short by around £7k.

[SeanC]

Well, I am a little bit encouraged by today's instalment. It seems the board have been having the same discussions as we have here.

I might be being unfair but is the reluctance to increase the levy/fear of an impact on participation influenced by SportEngland's participation targets? If so it's particularly unfortunate with the SportScotland targets being membership based. It probably contradicts many clubs aims. Given the choice between the two, many clubs would prefer membership as membership (might) lead to volunteering which our economy is based.

It's also a shame as I can see quite a few ways forward that could help meet the diverse aims:

- devolve tax raising in Scotland. Let the Scots raise their increase by a mechanism chosen by SOA.
- Most level D competitors are experienced orienteers, and (at least down my way) are unlikely to be deterred by an increase in entries from say £4 to £5. Let the clubs decide how to avoid deterring newcomers by cross subsidising cheaper runs on newcomers courses and junior courses.
- If BO don't trust clubs to do that, have a reduced or no levy rate for juniors and IND's at level D events.
- Family membership is the main problem with the proposal - introduce a genuine deal for families - eg £5 BOF junior, £15 senior, £20 family.
- plus all the ideas in this thread.

A period of consultation, as today's article suggested, is just what we need. Then the EGM option might need to be dusted down, then we could have 2 or 3 good/least bad options to vote on.

Finally we all agree getting more people to level D events is really important to BO (it's good to hear that BTW, ie it's not just about the non-club stuff). So we could reform the development committee with the aim of helping to do just that - but meeting online to save money. Get volunteers talking to each other to spread ideas and enthusiasm. Lets agree to divert a little bit of money to support that.

[graeme]

SportEngland's participation targets ... SportScotland targets being membership based.

Who do you think sets the targets?
Normally it's the proposer who defines what success looks like. Then the funding agency looks at the targets as part of deciding whether to fund.
I would be astonished if it wasn't SOA who decided to set a target based on membership*. Similarly I would be very surprised if it wasn't BO who decided on a target based on participation. Both are reasonable measures and its not surprising that Sport[Country] would agree with either.

But the main problem is that the bid to SportEngland, for RunChallenge and Xplorer, has not generated any revenue-generating income stream, even to make those programmes sustainable. Again, if level-D requires a substantial levy, why should RunChallenge and Xplorer be immune?

Its also worth taking a look at what SportEngland thought it was investing in...
http://www.sportengland.org/our-work/na ... vestments/
... traditional colour coded level C and D events! According to Sportengland, the levy should be coming into the clubs, not out.

This investment will enable the British Orienteering Federation to continue the expansion of its events programme and explore the potential of technology to enhance the experience of the sport.

caveat: I haven't read the SportScotland funding bid.

[SeanC]

Well, that's a question for the board members who might be reading this - is it possible to use part of that SportEngland funding to fund local events? Clubs might be keen on doing an Xplorer course for the children instead of a white for example?

Xplorer seems to be being offered on a loss leading/free basis to local authorities, friends of parks etc. Presumably this is to encourage them to run Xplorer events independantly in the long run. I can see parallels with ParkRun in what they are aiming to do. But can these partners be charged? It takes £2000 to set up a ParkRun I think I've heard.

http://www.xplorer.org.uk/offer

However the ideal partner is a friendly contact from a local orienteering club - one who is positive towards Xplorer. The local club contact might be able to help with map tweaks and of course direct juniors from orienteering clubs along to these Xplorer events. That kind of support justifies a charge?

I only read the letter from Selwyn in Focus about problems with Xplorer and LOC. But do other clubs know about Xplorer in their local area?

Here's a test -

MV, GO, SLOW members - does your club know about an Xplorer event at Gibraltar recreation ground, Ewell on the 27th March.

NOR members - Xplorer at Pretty Corner Wood on 4th April

LEI - Blaby 6th April?

NE, NW, Yorks - over 100 events. http://www.xplorer.org.uk/xplorer-events

[Electrocuted]

Sportscotland set the targets based on membership. They also determine what their funding can be used on, so we have to raise our own funds to achieve certain objectives. This is done through membership fees, the SOA levy, gift aid (please sign up on SOA website if you are a member), charitable funding, sponsorship etc.

We really struggled when BOF removed the family and local membership in 2012 and the president at the time spoke at the AGM to raise our concerns. Through a lot of development work we are back on track but the potential increase in membership could set us back again.

[roadrunner]

Xplorer seems to be being offered on a loss leading/free basis to local authorities, friends of parks etc. Presumably this is to encourage them to run Xplorer events independantly in the long run. I can see parallels with ParkRun in what they are aiming to do. But can these partners be charged? It takes £2000 to set up a ParkRun I think I've heard.

http://www.xplorer.org.uk/offer

I thought it was £3000, but that's certainly the parkrun model (sponsors contribute as well, plus voluntary donations from parkrunners). And the one thing that's set in stone is that it's free: http://www.parkrun.org.uk/littlestoke/n ... ice-board/

The Xplorer link suggests that to get the benefits, they only have to run 6 events in all - I would have thought there would have been an on-going commitment.

Looking at Mike's latest message, surely one of the issues with increasing levy is that "Level D" covers a number of diverse events, some aimed primarily at newcomers and some not. I think SeanC's idea - that clubs could subsidise a levy increase for non-members at their Level D events - is worth considering. Another option would be to retain the same levy at Level D events.

I did a quick comparison of the options, based on my own participation last year (19 events, of which 6 Level D, 8 Levels A-C and the rest overseas). The increases ranged from £11.40 to £13.50, with the proposed option being the cheapest. Increasing the levy on just Level A-C events (obviously by a greater amount) made virtually no difference - less than 5p/year! It would be interesting to see a similar comparison for others.

[Paul Frost]

Looking at Mike's latest message, surely one of the issues with increasing levy is that "Level D" covers a number of diverse events, some aimed primarily at newcomers and some not. I think SeanC's idea - that clubs could subsidise a levy increase for non-members at their Level D events - is worth considering. Another option would be to retain the same levy at Level D events.

If level D events had a lower levy I suspect many level C events would downgrade to D to save money.

I did a quick comparison of the options, based on my own participation last year (19 events, of which 6 Level D, 8 Levels A-C and the rest overseas). The increases ranged from £11.40 to £13.50, with the proposed option being the cheapest. Increasing the levy on just Level A-C events (obviously by a greater amount) made virtually no difference - less than 5p/year! It would be interesting to see a similar comparison for others.

The mix will vary from area to area and I suspect that your mix is far from normal, in more remote locations many members only go to local events.

[roadrunner]

Looking at Mike's latest message, surely one of the issues with increasing levy is that "Level D" covers a number of diverse events, some aimed primarily at newcomers and some not. I think SeanC's idea - that clubs could subsidise a levy increase for non-members at their Level D events - is worth considering. Another option would be to retain the same levy at Level D events.

If level D events had a lower levy I suspect many level C events would downgrade to D to save money.

That may be right, but shouldn't the level of an event really be decided by the type of event, rather than the whim of the club? Anything with more than a certain number of colour-coded or age-class courses ought to be (at least) Level C, in my opinion.

I did a quick comparison of the options, based on my own participation last year (19 events, of which 6 Level D, 8 Levels A-C and the rest overseas). The increases ranged from £11.40 to £13.50, with the proposed option being the cheapest. Increasing the levy on just Level A-C events (obviously by a greater amount) made virtually no difference - less than 5p/year! It would be interesting to see a similar comparison for others.

The mix will vary from area to area and I suspect that your mix is far from normal, in more remote locations many members only go to local events.

I'd agree entirely that my mix is not typical, which is why I was interested to see how it panned out for others. But I thought I probably competed in fewer events than most, and so would gain out of shifting the charges onto the levy, whereas in fact the reverse was true. The trouble is, it's hard to find out the raw data, so it isn't really possible for anyone here to work out exactly what options would raise the required amount. The best I could come up with, digging though the AGM papers etc, was this:

BO has 10939 members; adding £10 to the senior membership fee raises about £80k. Therefore, there must be about 8000 senior members and 2939 junior.

The 2015 participation figures (at events, excluding activities) are 106360 senior member runs, 27125 senior non-member runs, 32517 junior member runs and 22182 junior non-member runs. So the average senior member runs in about 13 events (not so different from my 14) and the average junior member in about 11.

And if non-members only run in 3 events maximum, then there are at least 9041 senior and 7394 junior potential members

[Snail]

Most of us probably know loads of people doing 40-50 events per year. But for every one person completing 50 these must on average be say 3 doing only 1 event, or 5 doing 5 etc, suggesting that a substantial majority of members (even of the order of 70-80%) only go to their own club events. The impact on the latter of shifting income to membership fees is obviously far more significant.

I still believe though that membership fees should cover the marginal cost - it doesn't make sense for BOF to lose money for every extra person we persuade to join - and it would be helpful to know what this cost is.

[Snail]

That may be right, but shouldn't the level of an event really be decided by the type of event, rather than the whim of the club? Anything with more than a certain number of colour-coded or age-class courses ought to be (at least) Level C, in my opinion.

Nice idea, but in practice there are too many variants of events: urban / night / selection races with only a few courses, score events with a single course, sprints with multiple rounds, etc). And it would be too easy to say something like ... no toilets, so we registered it as Level D!

I still remember when SOA tried to register S6D as Level C (or colour-coded as it was then) rather than Level B, precisely to pay a lower levy

There are only two simple ways to avoid that sort of levy arbitrage: the same per capita levy for all levels of event, or levy as a percentage of the total entry fee income. Each has advantages and disadvantages - and both have been tried ...

[MIE]

Here's a test -

MV, GO, SLOW members - does your club know about an Xplorer event at Gibraltar recreation ground, Ewell on the 27th March.

Yep, know about that one.

Also know about the one (or 6) at Beddington Park that is not yet
in the list (first is one April 6th).

BO requested that we supply (FOC) the OCAD file for Beddington and when asked to
ensure that there was 1. the club logo, 2. an acknowledgement that the survey had
been done by the club and 3. the the map was copyrighted to the club they
said it was "not policy as the layout was done by a marketing company" (paraphrased).

BO are now paying for some other person to produce an Xplorer map, at the same time
as we are surveying for a new POC on the same area. Obviously a really good use of
resources and money by BO

[Gross]

BO are now paying for some other person to produce an Xplorer map, at the same time
as we are surveying for a new POC on the same area. Obviously a really good use of
resources and money by BO

Love it Worth at least another £5 on membership & 10% on levy

Keep these 'best practices' coming

[maprun]

One of the attractions of level C and above events is the chance of ranking points. I'm sure a level C ranking event costing 50p or a £1 more, will pull in more entries than an identical D event, more than offsetting the fixed costs of holding either event, plus any additional levy.

[Paul Frost]

It may come as a surprise but some people don't give a ... about ranking points.
If you have been around Nope for any length of time you will know that orienteers are careful with their money, so the option of saving money may be more desirable than ranking points.

[canol]

One part of the role of an Association Fixtures Secretary (AFS) is to keep an eye on their area to ensure that events are registered at the correct level (and encourage clubs to change if it is felt the event has been registered at the wrong level). Outside of my area (as I live close to a border between areas) I can attend a Level D event with two hundred runners while in my area clubs struggle to get 100 to attend a Level C event.

Unfortunately the event registration does need to reflect the stature of the event rather than the anticipated attendance. Is there something in this though, could the whole levy system change to reflect attendance more or are event treasurers going to have a much harder time? I wonder whether events with larger entries might have slightly lower event costs per competitor at Level C and D?

Also note, Level B events often go on the BOF database as Level C for a short while until the National Fixtures Secretary is asked by AFS to change the registration, so an events registration does depend on when you look at the fixtures list.