Membership and levy proposal

[Spookster]

Spookster, out of interest, does the Board consider the BO office is the correct size and cost, for the anticipated reduced staffing levels?

Without knowing the future staffing levels, it's not possible to say. But remember that BO has only recently moved (from Darley Dale to Tansley) as part of a cost reduction exercise. A further move may, or may not, be required.

[maprun]

Thank you Spookster, the budgets make sense now. I can't see any reason not to vote for one of the Board's options.

[andypat]

Its really difficult to make a decision on this. Especially with the special pleading from the elites who I absolutely want to support.
But I'm really concerned about the impact of either of the proposed levies on the local event scene in Scotland. We are already seeing plenty of "activities" to avoid levy and this is only going to happen more, the end result of which appears to be that BOF will want to increase it further.

Local events, and particularly the sort of weekly series that we often have up here will cease to be viable.

I understand that the board in their statement have said they will consider differential levies for local events, but if they have a mandate to increase the levy from the membership now, I worry how motivated they will be to see that through.

Feels like the classic rock/hard place scenario. Bit sad its come to this tbh.

[maprun]

I'm really concerned about the impact of either of the proposed levies on the local event scene in Scotland. We are already seeing plenty of "activities" to avoid levy and this is only going to happen more, the end result of which appears to be that BOF will want to increase it further.

Andypat, the idea of a small notional levy on the first 50 to 100 competitors regardless of the event being held, would seem to me to be the best method. It avoids the downgrading of events to D level, and helps organisers of smaller events to be more confident of covering their fixed costs, before the levy bites. Needless to say to pay for this, a higher levy would have to be charged on all competitors over the 50 to 100 mark. I'm sure BO have the data to work out the breakeven on this.

It's raises no more in levies, so your average orienteer will pay about the same each year in levies. It might possibly raise more, if organisers are working around the current system. It should hopefully increase local events and participation at them, fitting in with two of BO targets, of more places and more participants.

[Scott]

The two current proposals are to increase the levy by either 25p or 45p per adult competitor. I'd be surprised if it had much of an impact on participation at any level if clubs chose to pass this on to competitors by increasing their adult entry fees by 25p/45p next year.

I used to be a big supporter of zero levy at smaller events, but have been won round by the argument it's fairer for all participants to make the same contribution to the running of the sport each time they take part.

Back when we had no levy on the first 75 adult-equivalent participants there were some small clubs that went for over a year without paying any levy at all, despite having fairly active programmes of races. It's not clear to be me that participants in those areas would be benefiting any more or less from the core business of British Orienteering than participants who happen to live in more densely populated areas.

(And, inevitably, some clubs were pathetic enough to game that system by claiming that, for instance, the White to Orange courses were a separate event that just happened to be taking place on the same area at the same time... )

[maprun]

Fair point Scott. Our club runs monthly cheap to enter Saturday events, aimed mainly at local schools. We try to compensate for this by making a profit on an annual level B event. The bank balance has remains broadly the same each year. More importantly, with regular articles in the local press and the low cost local events, allied with the lower BO membership fee, the membership has grown steadily over the last decade.

[Snail]

Like others I find this difficult.

I dug around in a cupboard to find some old accounts, and the only set I could easily find were from 1990. In that year total member income (membership + levy + major events) raised £94k. By comparison the 2016 figure of £197k doesn't initially look unreasonable, given that prices have probably doubled over that period - so roughly the same in real terms.

Programmes have almost certainly changed over the period, but it appears that expenditure on 'Talent and Performance' has also roughly doubled over the same period (£197k, compared to 'Pursuit of International Success' at £101k, with both years being largely grant funded).

But crucially these ignore declining membership and participation over the period. I can't immediately find any figures to back this up, but my gut feel (based on BOC, JK, local events etc) is that both have probably roughly halved. If so the average take from individual members has already doubled in real terms over that period, and the proposal now is for a further 35% (£70k) increase on top of that. Effectively we are trying to maintain / increase the central structure from a much reduced membership.

I am not suggesting that increasing charges and decreasing membership are as simple as cause and effect, but at some stage we have to accept that we can't run a larger, or even the same size, central body from a declining membership. And based on the current age profile, with something like two-thirds aged 55+, membership is only going to decline further over the next decade.

Which is why I am inclined, albeit slightly reluctantly, to vote against either increase. And suggest that the Board look more critically at what is essential and what is simply 'nice to have'.

I don't think there is much the central body can do to directly increase membership, so unless clubs in aggregate manage to significantly increase membership in the 20-50 age range, thus permitting an increase in central expenditure, the future for the sport as a whole - and not just international representation - is not looking too good.

[Paul Frost]

With all this talk of trying to make the levy fairer and dependant of the size of event etc. I'm puzzled as to why the option of charging a percentage of the entry fee has never been raised as an option?

The flat rate is very unfair on smaller events, which are in effect are subsidising the larger ones, which is the wrong way around. Imagine if the income tax rate was a flat amount of X pounds regardless of income!

As a starting guess, if the entry fee was £10 then a 15% levy would return the sort of figure being looked for. But the smaller local events with a £5 entry fee would only be paying .75p. With the big events bringing in more.

The advantage of that system would be that it is self adjusting for inflation and market conditions, so it wouldn't need to be reviewed/revised at every AGM. It also automatically adjusts for juniors and students who pay a lower entry fee. In Scotland it's also common to only charge the junior rate for adults on non TD5 courses and students, so it would cover that as well and mean that the club didn't lose money on those entries.

The levy return would be a simple percentage calculation of how much money was collected in entry fees, rather than needing to break out juniors.

[roadrunner]

In the document "The Funding Question" BO states:

Experience over the last few years indicates that it is almost impossible to gain sponsorship – the days of sponsorship are now over across sports with most ‘sponsorship’ deals being commercial partnerships where all partners benefit.

Yet every road race, from the London Marathon down to the smallest "fun run", seems to still be able to get sponsors - and while any sponsorship deal has to be seen to provide benefits for both partners, I wouldn't see many of these as commercial partnerships. I can certainly see that it's very hard these days to get sponsorship on a national level, as BO would do, but maybe if clubs could get sponsorship on an event-by-event basis this could enable them to pay an increased levy without charging a higher entry fee.

[frog]

I wondered what happened to the year in a box. That was the BOF rep who came and talked to the scottish club reps in Fife. I kept expecting us to get sent it but then forgot about it. I'm votingh against both. Our local events don't make much money any way and the BOF levy makes a large dent in them. I'd rather make an annual donation to the Scottish elites than send more money to pay for Mike Hamilton and co. Has Mike Hamilton ever actually been to Scotland orienteering?

[SJC]

I'm puzzled as to why the option of charging a percentage of the entry fee has never been raised as an option?

I thought that something like this had been used in the past. This resulted in lower entry fees but increased parking costs, and other charges separated out so as not to form part of the entry fee. If there is any way to beat the system (such as the ever increasing number of "activities") then some clubs will exploit it.

[maprun]

I used to be a big supporter of zero levy at smaller events, but have been won round by the argument it's fairer for all participants to make the same contribution to the running of the sport each time they take part.

Back when we had no levy on the first 75 adult-equivalent participants there were some small clubs that went for over a year without paying any levy at all, despite having fairly active programmes of races. It's not clear to be me that participants in those areas would be benefiting any more or less from the core business of British Orienteering than participants who happen to live in more densely populated areas.

Scott, would you feel differently if the levy was lower, say 50p on the first 75 competitors, and the wording about events on the same area, on the same day tightened up? With a notional levy on the first 75 competitors, all clubs would have to pay a levy, on all their events.

The levy wording would have to cover situations such as day and night events on the same area on the same day, YBT Finals and an adult events combined on the same area, possibly run by different clubs etc. This is not beyond the wit of nerdy and creative orienteers to come up with the necessary wording!

[MJG]

Am I alone amongst readers here in not apparently having had the email from British Orienteering giving notice of the EGM? A quick straw poll at a club meeting this week suggested I might not be. I am quite prepared to accept that I could have missed it or my ISP in its wisdom could have decided it was spam, but it rather begs the question as to whether email is sufficient to give notice of a General Meeting. Expensive I know to have to post notification to every member.

[DM]

In the document "The Funding Question" BO states:

Experience over the last few years indicates that it is almost impossible to gain sponsorship – the days of sponsorship are now over across sports with most ‘sponsorship’ deals being commercial partnerships where all partners benefit.

Yet every road race, from the London Marathon down to the smallest "fun run", seems to still be able to get sponsors - and while any sponsorship deal has to be seen to provide benefits for both partners, I wouldn't see many of these as commercial partnerships. I can certainly see that it's very hard these days to get sponsorship on a national level, as BO would do, but maybe if clubs could get sponsorship on an event-by-event basis this could enable them to pay an increased levy without charging a higher entry fee.

As evidenced by the comment about London Marathon and road races, sponsorship IS available and will continue to be. The fact that BO failed to get any was most likely due to the wrong person asking the wrong questions in the wrong way. I worked for an oil company and decided which race drivers got sponsorship, some probably very good drivers/teams missed out due to a poor first approach, and others were ditched because they did not deliver what they promised.
I tend to agree that sponsorship could be better gained at a local level, I believe SYO have sponsors (and logos on shirts/jackets). Then again, when this was raised in my club there were objections to running around looking like some ******** cyclist. Sponsors want their brand/logos seen in all sorts of places (podium shots in papers/magazines being just one, publicity photos being another) so if club memebers don't play ball then they can't expect the money to keep flowing. Not exactly sponsorship but a "deal" for orienteers I easily got agreed was with New Balance at the Lakes 5, they got exposure of their brand in the final details in return for runners getting a 10% discount on already well priced trainers in the 4 shops they have in the Lakes.

[graeme]

Its quite hard to get anything really valuable though. Our nice sponsors at racethecastles are mainly public bodies and O-related. It's much easier to make a case for what they're getting from us.

http://www.racethecastles.com/partners-sponsors

We did get some "real" commercial sponsors, all of it after very protracted negotiations, but no actual cash.

Run and Become paid for goodie bags and map printing, with their name on it, for a warm up course starting and finishing at their shop, and Illegal Jacks gave us free use of their premises and discounted food. Tiso gave us discount vouchers, Nairns gave us oatcakes, Stoats gave is porridge and Tunnocks gave us wafers. We promoted all of them from our PA in central Edinburgh and Stirling, and they're all great companies so I still recommend them. Like I just did.

Illegal Jacks, in particular, had a cashflow crisis and refinanced using kickstarter. Orienteers supportd on social medai, and piled in donating literally thousands of pounds to get them going again.

That would be Illegal Jacks TexMex grill in St Patrick Square, Edinburgh. (see what I did there?)

Interlopers has been sponsored by CompassPoint for over ten years. That's http://www.compasspoint-online.co.uk/ "The orienteers choice". The UK's largest online orienteering equipment shop.

The UK Elite O-league raised about 3k of sponsorship last year- thank you to ggmaps and Deeside OLM - which then leveraged a similar amount of local government funds.

(Better shut up now before I get modded.)