Membership and levy proposal

[Spookster]

SE state in their investment document that NGBs should be financially self-sustaining.

Yes, and that's the situation that we're trying to reach with the increased membership and levy income (albeit in 2017 it will need some money to come from reserves), as you'll see in the proposed budgets provided as supporting information.

In the case of BO, that implies the SE projects should create increased membership income and participation levies to cover the costs they incur in running these programmes.

BO will only commit to doing SE programmes that are fully funded by SE. It won't be using members' money or levy income to subsidise SE programme overheads. If, in undertaking those projects for SE, we can consequently benefit from increased membership and levy incomes (Graeme's point from a few pages ago), then that's even better.

Edit: in retrospect, orienteering as part of activity holidays is a bad example (because that's more likely to be a commercial activity income stream than a SE funded programme). Something like "Virtual Orienteering" might be a better example. It might hit some of the SE target segments (e.g. teenagers), but it might also generate some people who then want to try mainstream orienteering, and even join a club.

[greywolf]

BO will only commit to doing SE programmes that are fully funded by SE. It won't be using members' money or levy income to subsidise SE programme overheads.

If that's the case, it would be helpful if you could lay out the SE budget for Xplorer, and demonstrate how much it contributed to the salaries of Mike Hamilton and other core staff - unless of course they never thought about it in worktime...

[Scott]

BO will only commit to doing SE programmes that are fully funded by SE. It won't be using members' money or levy income to subsidise SE programme overheads. If, in undertaking those projects for SE, we can consequently benefit from increased membership and levy incomes (Graeme's point from a few pages ago), then that's even better.

Edit: in retrospect, orienteering as part of activity holidays is a bad example (because that's more likely to be a commercial activity income stream than a SE funded programme). Something like "Virtual Orienteering" might be a better example. It might hit some of the SE target segments (e.g. teenagers), but it might also generate some people who then want to try mainstream orienteering, and even join a club.

I note one of the aims in the strategic plan is to "Ensure all activities provide links through to club orienteering". I took that as meaning that *all* SE-funded programmes should, at least in principle, generate some people who would want to try mainstream orienteering, and that BO wouldn't therefore be bidding for funding any programmes without a clear plan for how they would this.

The dearth of individuals currently graduating from SE-funded programmes to mainstream/club orienteering has been the subject criticism from the membership for some years, so I'd see this as a good move.

It should be an interesting discussion at the conference.

[maprun]

If that's the case, it would be helpful if you could lay out the SE budget for Xplorer, and demonstrate how much it contributed to the salaries of Mike Hamilton and other core staff - unless of course they never thought about it in worktime...

and looking forwards, any time MH and the core staff spend on new SE funded projects should be taken into account within the SE grant, otherwise one (many others) of the main elements of the marginal costs will be ignored. For MH that could be a lot of time not spent on core activities, which other staff will need to be paid to do. Time sheets, including time taking calls, should do the trick if SE have difficulty with accepting the hours! A Board agenda item?

[daffdy]

BO will only commit to doing SE programmes that are fully funded by SE. It won't be using members' money or levy income to subsidise SE programme overheads.

If that's the case, it would be helpful if you could lay out the SE budget for Xplorer, and demonstrate how much it contributed to the salaries of Mike Hamilton and other core staff - unless of course they never thought about it in worktime...

As reported in Summer 2015 Focus, Sport England have been contributing ~£105k to core operations staff.

As has been mentioned a few times before, and recently posted on the website, British Orienteering members' income pays only for three fte staff.

[mykind]

I think the basic question is why do we need three paid staff when very similar sports (e.g. Fell Racing) are managing perfectly well without any.

[Scott]

To be fair, a proportion of the NGB functions for fell running are actually being fulfilled by England Athletics (in England; I don't know what the situation is in the other home nations).

[Spookster]

I think the basic question is why do we need three paid staff when very similar sports (e.g. Fell Racing) are managing perfectly well without any.

UK Athletics is the National Governing Body for fell running, not the FRA.

It looks like SportIdent is providing the FRA membership database and payment processing system, so that's clearly helpful in reducing the staffing requirement on FRA.

Joining FRA (with no paid staff) currently would cost me £16. I join SYO, YHOA and BOF for £15*. Orienteering is under-charging for membership at that price.

(* other club and association fees will differ)

[maprun]

Joining FRA (with no paid staff) currently would cost me £16. I join SYO, YHOA and BOF for £15*. Orienteering is under-charging for membership at that price.

Please don't forget the levy on your participation ,for an active member the membership is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Would £80, or more a year, be nearer the mark?

From past AGM votes on funding, members want the low membership fee, plus pay as you go to continue. The proposed plan is for expenditure of around £330k a year, so around £30 per member.

[LostAgain]

Joining FRA (with no paid staff) currently would cost me £16. I join SYO, YHOA and BOF for £15*. Orienteering is under-charging for membership at that price.

Please don't forget the levy on your participation ,for an active member the membership is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Would £80, or more a year, be nearer the mark?

Exactly maprun. For a family the BO contribution through levy and membership goes into £100's for which I do not personally feel we get value from BO.

The fact that FRA are able to get "sponsorship" to manage their membership dbase is a clear example of how a good governing body works for it's membership.

[Spookster]

Joining FRA (with no paid staff) currently would cost me £16. I join SYO, YHOA and BOF for £15*. Orienteering is under-charging for membership at that price.

Please don't forget the levy on your participation ,for an active member the membership is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Would £80, or more a year, be nearer the mark?

Agreed, but I can choose whether to go events, and how many I want to go to. Yes, if I do about 40 events a year, I'd pay another £50 in levy at the current levy rate, or £68 if the levy was increased to £1.70. But remember that clubs set event entry fees, and clubs don't need to simply add levy increases to event entry fees if they choose not to. SYO runs a highly successful schools league where the entry for kids is free, cross subsidised by other income (grants and larger events that make a surplus).

[maprun]

Spookster, personally I think the BO model is nearly ideal (lower levy for the first 50-75 runners apart). £30 for an average member supports MH September Board meeting comment that if members expect to pay less, they do not realise what it costs to run a NGB these days.

[Spookster]

For a family the BO contribution through levy and membership goes into £100's for which I do not personally feel we get value from BO.

OK Dean, two questions:

1. What things that BOF currently does do you suggest the sport doesn't need to have done?
2. What things do you think should be done by volunteers rather than paid staff? (Are you volunteering to do them?)

Or perhaps you want everything that BOF does to continue, but don't like how much money it costs? In that case, which items in the budget do you think are overly expensive? We've already been challenged on the office rent, but the reality is that it's a remarkably good deal.

[RJ]

1. What things that BOF currently does do you suggest the sport doesn't need to have done?
2. What things do you think should be done by volunteers rather than paid staff? (Are you volunteering to do them?)

Indeed, interesting questions......

Existing members won't continue to pay more and more every year. After all, we are the people who put on ALL the events. We are the ones who run the junior regional squads and help with the development of the young talent. There is just so much that the volunteer base of the sport does, week in, week out. I hope that you fully appreciate the input of the membership..... it isn't just a £5 membership fee, and £1+ in levy every time we compete.

And to add to that...... We generate the new members and make them welcome in our clubs. We promote the sport locally, and provide opportunities to try orienteering.
CompassSport magazine highlights the various aspects of the sport, and reaches a good proportion of those who are committed to the sport. Casual participation is catered for through club websites, newsletters etc.

So exactly which part of the sport that we participate in week in, week out, does BOF do? Provide insurance, the ranking list, a website, support for international competition..... OK

[Electrocuted]

Joining FRA (with no paid staff) currently would cost me £16. I join SYO, YHOA and BOF for £15*. Orienteering is under-charging for membership at that price.

Please don't forget the levy on your participation ,for an active member the membership is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Would £80, or more a year, be nearer the mark?

Agreed, but I can choose whether to go events, and how many I want to go to. Yes, if I do about 40 events a year, I'd pay another £50 in levy at the current levy rate, or £68 if the levy was increased to £1.70. But remember that clubs set event entry fees, and clubs don't need to simply add levy increases to event entry fees if they choose not to. SYO runs a highly successful schools league where the entry for kids is free, cross subsidised by other income (grants and larger events that make a surplus).

That's maybe a possibility for a large club in a heavily populated area of England but the reality is that small clubs and especially those in less populated areas can simply not afford to put on events free of charge for the pleasure of writing a cheque to BO out of no proceeds.

Orienteering differs from other sports because people generally compete more often. I don't mind paying £30 for a cycle sportive because I might only do 3 a year and I go out cycling with my club the rest of the time which costs nothing.

But orienteers take part in orienteering by competing generally regularly and charging even £5 for a local event is likely to put people off. But with a levy of potentially £1.70 an event even £5 doesn't leave much for map printing and other expenses.