Membership and levy proposal

[andy]

Just looked at the BOF website & I can't see any mention of a director called 'daffdy'

How do we know 'daffdy'is a director or even a member of BOF. Possible he is an anonymous angry person?????

jajajaja

because his signature says:

David Maliphant, DRONGO/LOC. Director, British Orienteering.

[Paul Frost]

Well if you want an answer, try asking someone rather than posting on some web forum. This is what makes me hesitate about engaging with Nopesport. It's useful and I like it, but at the end of the day it's a bunch of mostly anonymous, mostly angry people who may or may not be members. It's not a substitute for actually engaging with your elected and appointed Board, if you want to engage with us.

I suspect that most of us around here know who the "anonymous" people are. It doesn't take long to work out who's who if you pay attention. But I have to agree with Gross, if you don't think anonymity is a good thing why aren't you using your real name?

Where else other than this web forum is it possible to have a discussion and engage with other orienteers about the things that concern them?
The 'discussion' that Mike H is having on the British Orienteering website is a bit one sided and provides no means to engage. Sending an email to the board isn't going to be seen by anyone else and so doesn't provide any measure of the depth of feeling. It also lacks transparency. I'm reminded of the question; "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The relatively small number of active Nope users is still too small, but it's better than nothing. Most of the people here have probably clocked more volunteer hours than many and have contributed to the sport for many years, so they are a relevant minority and they are taking the time to engage.

I also dispute that we are "mostly angry", I think passionate would be a better label. There isn't much to discuss if everyone agrees, so it takes something contentious to trigger a discussion. Forums were a precursor to the social networks that everyone now uses, and of course Twitter and Facebook are known for their light hearted, calm and balanced content.

[Gross]

because his signature says:

David Maliphant, DRONGO/LOC. Director, British Orienteering.

ooooopppppssss...... so it does But also says his views are not those of BOF etc so it follows any answers are not from BOF or the Board but Joe Bloggs Punter

[Mrs H]

but in general clubs were not good at doing what they were asked and turned them into great training nights for their members that were less good for attracting and retaining new members. I know there are exceptions, so don't throw them at me .

With all due respect Daffdy that deserves to be thrown back. Clubs are very good at doing what they are meant to do. If that doesn't meet BOF or SE's remit then it is hardly the clubs' fault.

For the most part club nights floundered because they have very little resemblance or relevance to the sport. I suspect Xplorer and Run Challenge will go the same ay for the same reasons. I thought when I did the highly successful Malvern Initiative over 10 years ago now that someone might have taken notice - but no BOF just slapped on a compulsory membership fee and scared almost all the new recruits away.

Is there no possibility that BOF will ever learn from its past mistakes - stop looking to the funding agencies for direction and start looking to the sport and the people who actually do it for some inspiration?

[DaveK]

Is there no possibility that BOF will ever learn from its past mistakes - stop looking to the funding agencies for direction and start looking to the sport and the people who actually do it for some inspiration?

Possibly with a 'no' vote?

[daffdy]

I suspect that most of us around here know who the "anonymous" people are. It doesn't take long to work out who's who if you pay attention. But I have to agree with Gross, if you don't think anonymity is a good thing why aren't you using your real name?

You can't change username, least not as far as I can see, so I'm stuck with a silly name from ages ago... but I can put my name in the signature, and I do. And people keep saying most of us around here know who the anonymous people are, but I'm not sure that's true. Maybe I'm too new to Nope? (only been here nearly 5 years).

But also says his views are not those of BOF etc so it follows any answers are not from BOF or the Board but Joe Bloggs Punter

Absolutely - because I don't speak for British Orienteering or the Board. If you want a response from the Board you need to ask the Board. But I do think Nopesport is a good way of reaching a good bunch of dedicated orienteers and orienteering volunteers, so I try to pitch in when I can.

Is there no possibility that BOF will ever learn from its past mistakes - stop looking to the funding agencies for direction and start looking to the sport and the people who actually do it for some inspiration?

Definitely! The next strategic plan will address this. In minute speak:

1. The plan will be for the sport and any funding submissions should come from the plan, not shape the plan in the first instance

Or my interpretation: we're not going to shape British Orienteering around funding bodies, it'll be more clearly for orienteering. (But if some funding is out there and fits in with British Orienteering's aims, we might as well apply for it).
So if we want development initiatives, it can be on our terms - but we'll probably have to pay for them.

With all due respect Daffdy that deserves to be thrown back. Clubs are very good at doing what they are meant to do. If that doesn't meet BOF or SE's remit then it is hardly the clubs' fault.

No, I agree with you MrsH. Clubs aren't meant to be SportEngland deliverers. That's not really a criticism of clubs - but it does mean that it's very unlikely that there will be large amounts of SportEngland funding for clubs, of the sort that maprun was suggesting, in the current funding environment. Though there might well be opportunities for individual clubs or associations to put bids in, I reckon we probably couldn't have a 'British Orienteering bid, clubs deliver' model on that scale at the moment even if that sort of funding was available.

Is there no possibility that BOF will ever learn from its past mistakes - stop looking to the funding agencies for direction and start looking to the sport and the people who actually do it for some inspiration?

Possibly with a 'no' vote?

To be honest, I think that would have precisely the opposite effect.

[Mrs H]

You reply very well.

[graeme]

Well if you want an answer, try asking someone rather than posting on some web forum.

If I want an answer for me, that's what I do. When I think the answer will be of interest to more than just me, including people I don't even know, I'll post on here.

I do think Nopesport is a good way of reaching a good bunch of dedicated orienteers and orienteering volunteers, so I try to pitch in when I can.

For which we are grateful.

[maprun]

With all due respect Daffdy that deserves to be thrown back. Clubs are very good at doing what they are meant to do. If that doesn't meet BOF or SE's remit then it is hardly the clubs' fault.

No, I agree with you MrsH. Clubs aren't meant to be SportEngland deliverers. That's not really a criticism of clubs - but it does mean that it's very unlikely that there will be large amounts of SportEngland funding for clubs, of the sort that maprun was suggesting, in the current funding environment. Though there might well be opportunities for individual clubs or associations to put bids in, I reckon we probably couldn't have a 'British Orienteering bid, clubs deliver' model on that scale at the moment even if that sort of funding was available.

According to BOF's own participation figures the clubs deliver the majority of the O participation towards SportEngland's target. Fact, the clubs are the principal deliverers and based on the past will continue to deliver after SE withdraw their funding. The Board should be selling the legacy left behind when clubs are invested in. Small investments resulting in large participation returns spread over several years.

IMO clubs need targeted assistance, to mention two, look at club websites, some good, many not so. I'm no IT expert but website templates can be developed, rather than clubs reinventing the wheel. Training on use of social media training is a second. I'm sure there could be a dozen more. Probably not a great cost and hopefully appealing to SportEngland within a larger package.

[daffdy]

According to BOF's own participation figures the clubs deliver the majority of the O participation towards SportEngland's target. Fact, the clubs are the principal deliverers and based on the past will continue to deliver after SE withdraw their funding.

Well yes, but I'm not sure the point you're making. SportEngland are interested in increasing participation, if people were participating before and would carry on participating without their funding, there isn't much incentive for them to fund the participation?

The Board should be selling the legacy left behind when clubs are invested in.

As the above post, that legacy isn't all that great for selling.

IMO clubs need targeted assistance, to mention two, look at club websites, some good, many not so. I'm no IT expert but website templates can be developed, rather than clubs reinventing the wheel. Training on use of social media training is a second. I'm sure there could be a dozen more. Probably not a great cost and hopefully appealing to SportEngland within a larger package.

This is happening now anyway, through what used to be called Club Leaders (should be familiar to clubs who sent someone to the 2014 Club & Association Conference) and is now called Club Matters.

[Big Jon]

Applications from clubs to lottery funding and other sources of funding (local charities, sports match etc) have always been possible and given the enthusiasm for "partnerships" by any grant giving body I would have thought that joint bids from a group of clubs would be well received.
In my experience it often just requires a flexible approach to word the application in such a way as to be suitable for the fund-givers choice of the month/year. The second thing I've experienced is that aiming high is more likely to succeed - grant giving bodies don't want to be messing around with £100 here and there. Joining with other clubs will increase the amount applied for and also spread the work load in reaching targets etc across more volunteers.

[maprun]

Daffy, please read other sport's SportEngland accepted funding applications that include improving existing clubs and creating new clubs. SportEngland accept this for other sports, in fact the majority of those at the top. Some of the sports make no mention of clubs by name, or other methods of delivering their development, yet they are club based sports, so you might conclude the clubs are delivering their development towards their SE targets.

https://public.sportengland.org/b2benga ... Items.aspx

IMO if you don't ask, you don't get.

[SeanC]

This is happening now anyway, through what used to be called Club Leaders (should be familiar to clubs who sent someone to the 2014 Club & Association Conference) and is now called Club Matters.

I noticed my former club DFOK have used this successfully to increase their membership. I know they have persuaded juniors from some Hackney Schools to join and compete in the YBT Hackney Schools have been coming to DFOK events for the past few years, initially persuaded by local park events in South East London, then moving on to 'proper' level D events further out in Kent, and now finally a level C competition at Ashdown Forest.

http://www.sportenglandclubmatters.com/ ... b-matters/

The club and association conference is great - but more could be done to help clubs with development. Much of this could be through volunteers and need not increase the budget - it just needs a structure. There are plenty of passionate orienteers around who would be quite willing to actively promote such development opportunities to clubs. No need to wait for the one conference we have a year, or for an occasional article in Focus that might not quite hit the mark. The sport could have volunteer regional development officers who go and visit clubs, and make plenty of noise in the car parks - pointing out the opportunities and encouraging clubs. Not everyone will be right for this role, a bit of enthusiasm but with realism is needed.

In some ways I hope I'm wrong, but it seems quite possible, even likely, that the vote will be no at the AGM. There will then be a bit of a crisis, but a great opportunity for everyone to talk to each other and understand the issues, and do things differently and better . That extra 90K or whatever might then be viewed as a more attractive investment by clubs, which then leaves the question of how to pay for it, which can be decided by offering members several different choices about how to pay, not just one.

[andypat]

Interestingly SportScotland have an initiaive going on the past few years called Sports Hubs which channels quite a substnatial amount of funding direct to clubs via their development plan.

[maprun]

These.
http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/clubs/c ... port-hubs/
http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/clubs/d ... nvestment/

So both SportScotland and SportEngland both back club based development as worthy of funding with the right submissions, just different models.

The question I would pose, is it better for clubs to decide how they can best develop, aided by their NGB, hopefully leaving lasting growth where clubs have used probably modest funding, or is it better to have the recent top down approach and employ none orienteers and partners to meet participation targets and have less permanent change (legacy) left at the end? More fundamentally are clubs trusted to deliver increased participation by their NGB on projects they have selected themselves, using a signifcant proportion of the NGB's funding grant?