Membership and levy proposal

[graeme]

We believe it's clear as described in the paper, but if not, then let us know!

It's like a single transferable vote.

But only people who vote for one of the board's favoured options get to have their vote transferred, and then it is transferred automatically to the board's other preferred option.

[aiming off]

The consequences of not voting for option 1 or 2 have been portrayed as British Orienteering no longer being able to support the "Core Business" that is relevant to it's members.

The one piece of information still missing in the EGM pack, is the all-important definition of what British Orienteering see as it's "Core Business."

[Spookster]

The one piece of information still missing in the EGM pack, is the all-important definition of what British Orienteering see as it's "Core Business."

Actually, as it explains here, there are two pieces of missing information currently. One is the explanation of what "core business" is for British Orienteering, and the other is the budget (actually two different budgets, with supporting notes). They're being finalised now, and will be online soon.

[aiming off]

Thanks, Spookster

I'm hoping it will match what members expect to be funding, can understand it's importance, and we can then agree on the best option of raising the additional funds from membership/participation.

Then we have a basis for us all swinging behind taking the sport forward.

[andypat]

I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with the lack of full details on the website only 19 days before the EGM.
I was initially prepared to give the benefit of the doubt but its starting to look a bit like either disorganisation or a tactic of some sort. I hope I know Spookster well enough to suspect he's guilty of neither but I'm starting to lose a bit of faith in our chief exec.
Surely the Chief executive of a National Governing Body of sport should have to hand a description of "core business" that the membership could understand without the need for adulteration?

[Gross]

but I'm starting to lose a bit of faith in our chief exec.

jajajaja

[Spookster]

I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with the lack of full details on the website only 19 days before the EGM.
I was initially prepared to give the benefit of the doubt but its starting to look a bit like either disorganisation or a tactic of some sort. I hope I know Spookster well enough to suspect he's guilty of neither but I'm starting to lose a bit of faith in our chief exec.
Surely the Chief executive of a National Governing Body of sport should have to hand a description of "core business" that the membership could understand without the need for adulteration?

Andy - thanks for your trust in me - you're absolutely right, there are no special tactics going on here! We just want to try to get it right.

A lot of work has gone on last week, with a lot of input from all the non-exec directors and Mike, both on the budgets and the explanation of core business, to try to get them right before publication. There is a target to get them published tonight. Please bear with us.

[andypat]

Thanks Spookster. Appreciate you are probably working yourselves into the ground on this. Also aware its peoples jobs on the line too.

[roadrunner]

It's on the website now.

[Spookster]

It's on the website now.

The Core Business paper is there.
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/consultations

The budget paper isn't, yet.

[aiming off]

Really good paper: I can relate to this as the Core Business of an NGB. Importantly, also can relate to what is non-Core, from a members perspective. Looking forward to the budget papers.

[DaveK]

Yes, will hopefully make those who think BO 'head office' role is irrelevant think twice!

[graeme]

It is a good definition of core.

And it emphasizes yet again that BO have sought funding from SportEngland for activities which are not core, do not support the core, and do not leverage income or membership to support the core. I can find no other sport which has failed to do this.

There is still no explanation for why this was done, or whether it will be done again in future. No doubt the consequences will be laid out in the forthcoming budget paper.

[Spookster]

It is a good definition of core.

And it emphasizes yet again that BO have sought funding from SportEngland for activities which are not core, do not support the core, and do not leverage income or membership to support the core. I can find no other sport which has failed to do this.

There is still no explanation for why this was done, or whether it will be done again in future. No doubt the consequences will be laid out in the forthcoming budget paper.

SportEngland will not fund the core business of an NGB. That's why the NGB's core business has to be sustainable from its own incomes (in our case primarily membership fees and levies), which is exactly what we're trying to achieve with the increases in each (but only to a level acceptable to the membership).

The things SportEngland will support are described in their investment guide. British Orienteering will be applying in the coming months as part of the 2017-2021 funding cycle.

What would be examples of things that you think SportEngland pay for, which are core business in other sports? Which core business of BO do you think they'd pay for?

[graeme]

The things SportEngland will support are described in their investment guide.

Indeed...

the audience with whom you are most closely
connected are those who already have a sport and physical activity habit. These
people feature in the ‘preparation-action-maintenance’ sections of the model below.
This is what we term ‘the core market’. We anticipate that the majority of our investment
in NGBs will come from the investment programme that is targeting this group.

You can read what they pay for here.
https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/n ... vestments/

Lets start at the top...

Archery: Developing its ontarget scheme to support archery clubs across England, with a particular focus on the 50 largest clubs
Setting up new clubs and supporting the development of existing clubs in universities and further education colleges
Improving partnerships with commercial providers to increase the conversion of occasional archers into regular participants.

“We’re making a significant investment in this sport, backing a commitment from BADMINTON England to increase its pace and scope of delivery so that even more people can get involved in badminton.”

The £2 million to improve badminton facilities will support BADMINTON England’s work with local councils and leisure operators as well as creating new spaces for the sport by converting empty warehouses into badminton facilities.

and so it goes on. Most of the awards are what the O-document calls "core business". The rest of it is about building capacity or non-core events WHICH RAISE MONEY FOR CORE EVENTS.

Of course you have to align with ever-shifting government targets. I raised over £30,000 external funding for Race the Castles (plus a similar amount in entry fees), primarily around bringing O-tourists from around the world, especially to designated less developed areas (Deeside in October). We had people 25 countries, they had a good time, they went back to tell their friends, more people will come in future. It was a good investment. We also facilitated local sports centres in delivering permanent courses.

When the dust settled probably £40,000 ended up in what I'd call "core" activities. Clubs and SOA, support for elites both at the event and subsequently to the Scottish elite squad. About £10k went to 'core market' - in T-shirts, goodie bags. No-quibbling payment of BOF-member mappers costs. Some people even enjoyed the orienteering.

You're free to not like how I chose to spend the money. The point is that the government spending leveraged the profit, which I then spent as I wanted. I'm sure BritishOrienteering would have spent it differently. If they'd taken up my offer to run it in their name, they could have. But Mike Hamilton thought it was all too risky and looked like effort, and turned down that £40,000 in favour of the safe £3000 levy.

All of which makes it a wee bit difficult for me to sympathize with the £68,500 budget deficit.