As you will have seen from an email today, British Orienteering are proposing to raise membership fees at this month's AGM. Trying join online today, it appears that currently senior fee is £10, junior fee is £3.30. The proposed new fees are £11 and £5.
Have I missed something or is the proposal to raise junior fees by £1.70, but adult fees £1? This seems unreasonable, particularly with no explanation/justification.
The increase in their membership for a family of five (2 adults, 3 kids) will be £7.10, the increase for an adult couple £2; that doesn't square with orienteering as a family sport.
membership fee increase proposal
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
membership fee increase proposal
Last edited by PG on Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- PG
- light green
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: In the Peak
Re: membership fee increase proposal
The current membership fees are far too small.
£30 for adults, £10 for over 16s, students, and genuinely unemployed (not rich retired people), £5 for under 16s. Some sort of family discount.
£30 for adults, £10 for over 16s, students, and genuinely unemployed (not rich retired people), £5 for under 16s. Some sort of family discount.
-
mharky - team nopesport
- Posts: 4541
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:39 pm
Re: membership fee increase proposal
That's correct the 2018 membership is £10 for an adult and £3.30 for a junior. The ratio of senior and junior membership fees of 3:1 was agreed at the 2012 AGM, when the decision was made to reduce the membership fees and increase the levy, and the 3:1 ratio was continued with the two options put to the members at the 2016 EGM. Interestingly, according to the February 2018 minutes where the AGM fee increase was discussed, there was no discussion recorded of a move to a 2.2:1 (£11:£5) ratio, nor is there any mention in the Board's AGM supporting statement for the change.PG wrote:As you will have seen from an email today, British Orienteering are proposing to raise membership fees at this month's AGM. Trying join online today, it appears that currently senior fee is £10, junior fee is £3.30. The proposed new fees are £11 and £5.
Have I missed something or is the proposal to raise junior fees by £1.70, but adult fees £1? This seems unreasonable, particularly with no explanation/justification.
The increase in their membership for a family of five (2 adults, 3 kids) will be £7.10, the increase for an adult couple £2; that doesn't square with orienteering as a family sport.
Don't forget it was agreed in 2016 that the ratio of Levy to Membership fee income would be 2:1 (previously agreed as 3:1 at the 2012 AGM), so that income would be mainly raised via participation rather than membership, with the aim of encouraging membership.mharky wrote:The current membership fees are far too small.
£30 for adults, £10 for over 16s, students, and genuinely unemployed (not rich retired people), £5 for under 16s. Some sort of family discount.
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: membership fee increase proposal
Most orienteers wouldn't even notice if they lost £11 down the back of the sofa. Compared to my experience of other sports and orienteering in other countries, our fees are really low. I don't see anything to fuss about.
-
Little Hoddy - green
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:06 pm
Re: membership fee increase proposal
I agree membership fees aren't a problem for committed orienteers who go to many events.
However membership fees are a problem for the 2 or 3 event per year type of person, the type of person who is mixing orienteering with other sports, or because they only wish to go orienteering locally (ie < 5 miles, not necessarily 'local' events). This is the big growth area we generally ignore.
Real club membership is combined with region and BO membership and then starts to look very expensive for 2 or 3 races a year. A family of 2 adults and 2 children to join my club is £52.60 per year.
This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for our daft insurance provider that insists that non members join after 3 events (and a host of other development limiting rules). Fortunately my club doesn't try and enforce this, it would be pretty difficult anyway.
So in summary I would actually go for a bigger increase that would enable us to sack our insurance provider . I would also go for pro-rata membership (as £52.60 looks even less value for new members in June).
However membership fees are a problem for the 2 or 3 event per year type of person, the type of person who is mixing orienteering with other sports, or because they only wish to go orienteering locally (ie < 5 miles, not necessarily 'local' events). This is the big growth area we generally ignore.
Real club membership is combined with region and BO membership and then starts to look very expensive for 2 or 3 races a year. A family of 2 adults and 2 children to join my club is £52.60 per year.
This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for our daft insurance provider that insists that non members join after 3 events (and a host of other development limiting rules). Fortunately my club doesn't try and enforce this, it would be pretty difficult anyway.
So in summary I would actually go for a bigger increase that would enable us to sack our insurance provider . I would also go for pro-rata membership (as £52.60 looks even less value for new members in June).
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: membership fee increase proposal
I look at the current BO membership fee as £10 plus £1.50 per run, so for many people it is £50-100, or even more.
Agree with both of these. The "3 events" rule is fairly daft:
- AFAIK it isn't time limited; if you went to 3+ events 20 years ago, you are supposed to become a full member at your first next event.
- It might just about be workable for 3 events by the same club over a short period; I doubt anyone checks other clubs' results, or even their own from more than a year ago, to try and enforce it.
- So it only works if the individual "owns up", but how many clubs actually turn away someone who admits to having attended 3 events but not having joined?
Far more sensible is just to encourage membership by differential entry fees (together with requiring it for certain major events). Around here the differential is usually £2, so anyone planning to orienteer more than around 5 times a year has a simple financial incentive to join, but below this they don't bother. Which is exactly as it should be.
For this reason, keeping the fixed element of the membership fee at around £10 is sensible. At £30 even someone who orienteers once a month would have no incentive to join.
SeanC wrote:... However membership fees are a problem for the 2 or 3 event per year type of person...
This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for our daft insurance provider that insists that non members join after 3 events ...Fortunately my club doesn't try and enforce this, it would be pretty difficult anyway.
Agree with both of these. The "3 events" rule is fairly daft:
- AFAIK it isn't time limited; if you went to 3+ events 20 years ago, you are supposed to become a full member at your first next event.
- It might just about be workable for 3 events by the same club over a short period; I doubt anyone checks other clubs' results, or even their own from more than a year ago, to try and enforce it.
- So it only works if the individual "owns up", but how many clubs actually turn away someone who admits to having attended 3 events but not having joined?
Far more sensible is just to encourage membership by differential entry fees (together with requiring it for certain major events). Around here the differential is usually £2, so anyone planning to orienteer more than around 5 times a year has a simple financial incentive to join, but below this they don't bother. Which is exactly as it should be.
For this reason, keeping the fixed element of the membership fee at around £10 is sensible. At £30 even someone who orienteers once a month would have no incentive to join.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: membership fee increase proposal
There is no 3 events "rule" enforced by the insurer. People can run as many events as they like without joining BOF and there is absolutely nothing to stop them.
The insurer offers free 3rd party insurance to individuals for their first 3 events - but unlike driving motor vehicles there is no legal requirement to be insured to run round a forest - or indeed most of the things we do.
The insurer offers free 3rd party insurance to individuals for their first 3 events - but unlike driving motor vehicles there is no legal requirement to be insured to run round a forest - or indeed most of the things we do.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: membership fee increase proposal
OK, I might have misunderstood this.
I had a look at the BO insurance cover note. It talks about insurance of the individual members, and insurance of the organisers/clubs and associations against damage to third parties.
So a non member turns up to their fourth event. They get a bit lost and leave a gate open. Cattle escape onto a major road, causing a serious accident. The insurers for the third parties involved in the accident argue it was the organising clubs fault for encouraging the relative newcomer onto a course that was too hard, and for not making it clear that there were livestock in the orienteering area.
So will the BO insurance cover this should the claim be upheld? If yes, then there's no significant reason for irregular orienteers to join a club other than making a financial contribution to the sport.
I'm not sure if I would use "your insured" as a selling point to a newbie in case they think "orienteering - do I need it"?
I had a look at the BO insurance cover note. It talks about insurance of the individual members, and insurance of the organisers/clubs and associations against damage to third parties.
So a non member turns up to their fourth event. They get a bit lost and leave a gate open. Cattle escape onto a major road, causing a serious accident. The insurers for the third parties involved in the accident argue it was the organising clubs fault for encouraging the relative newcomer onto a course that was too hard, and for not making it clear that there were livestock in the orienteering area.
So will the BO insurance cover this should the claim be upheld? If yes, then there's no significant reason for irregular orienteers to join a club other than making a financial contribution to the sport.
I'm not sure if I would use "your insured" as a selling point to a newbie in case they think "orienteering - do I need it"?
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: membership fee increase proposal
SeanC wrote:OK, I might have misunderstood this.
I had a look at the BO insurance cover note. It talks about insurance of the individual members, and insurance of the organisers/clubs and associations against damage to third parties.
So a non member turns up to their fourth event. They get a bit lost and leave a gate open. Cattle escape onto a major road, causing a serious accident. The insurers for the third parties involved in the accident argue it was the organising clubs fault for encouraging the relative newcomer onto a course that was too hard, and for not making it clear that there were livestock in the orienteering area.
So will the BO insurance cover this should the claim be upheld? If yes, then there's no significant reason for irregular orienteers to join a club other than making a financial contribution to the sport.
I'm not sure if I would use "your insured" as a selling point to a newbie in case they think "orienteering - do I need it"?
I'm no expert on insurance matters, but I would expect that the club would be covered for any claim against them (likewise the organiser, controller, etc), but not (in this case) the competitor who left the gate open.
I agree, though: insurance is hardly the best selling point. Surely just charging more for non-members is simpler and better, much as happens in road races.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: membership fee increase proposal
roadrunner wrote:I'm no expert on insurance matters, but I would expect that the club would be covered for any claim against them (likewise the organiser, controller, etc), but not (in this case) the competitor who left the gate open.
Now for the problem area...... If the competitor in this case (non-member, running his fourth event) has been seen leaving the gate open, and the farmer identifies him, then a specific requirement for insurance comes into play.
Is our insurance cover going to pay out? I think the whole point of the 'three event issue' is that the competitor is not covered.
Which implies that the club is not covered. The organiser, controller and committee aren't involved.
So the farmer finds that there is no redress, and probably has to claim on his own third party insurance.
Next..... in twelve months time the club approaches the same farmer for permission, and the farmer says...... The farmer also speaks to his farming friends. So the request to another farmer falls on deaf ears as well.
Access ruined from there on.....
It is very difficult to police. So, keep the membership element trivial (or close to trivial). Members are very valuable. They provide all the volunteer effort for the club. The more members the club has the more events it can stage, the greater the participation, and the larger the levy paid to grow and maintain the sport. Simples.
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Re: membership fee increase proposal
RJ wrote:...Is our insurance cover going to pay out? I think the whole point of the 'three event issue' is that the competitor is not covered.Which implies that the club is not covered. The organiser, controller and committee aren't involved....
I'm not sure this is right. I agree the individual competitor isn't covered by BO insurance for third-party liability. (Some individuals may have alternative cover - e.g. homeowners may have some cover under their house policy - as it is little different to someone just walking in the countryside and leaving a gate open). It is up to the individual if they want to risk any/all of their assets against a possible claim.
But I think the club should still be covered, provided they have met the normal requirements for event registration, officials etc. Although since we don't all agree it is important for BO to clarify this!
In most cases the farmer / landowner will get more joy from seeking redress / taking action against the club (and/or BO), and thus their insurer, than against an uninsured individual.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: membership fee increase proposal
It costs less to join BO than it does to run in a BO race. *shrug*
Andrew Dalgleish (INT)
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
- andy
- god
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: membership fee increase proposal
What could you possibly do as a competitor that would require you to have 3rd party liability insurance? Or at least, what things that you might not do otherwise?
The gate example would also apply if you were just going for a walk - and would the farmer really sue you personally for that? Only if they'd put a extra massive sign up, or you'd willfully chopped down the fence.
I really can't think of anything for the individual competitor (and it sounds like in 50 years it may never have happened) - as opposed to the club where there could certainly be cases where you'd want insurance, and in any case you have to prove that you do to get permission in many cases.
The gate example would also apply if you were just going for a walk - and would the farmer really sue you personally for that? Only if they'd put a extra massive sign up, or you'd willfully chopped down the fence.
I really can't think of anything for the individual competitor (and it sounds like in 50 years it may never have happened) - as opposed to the club where there could certainly be cases where you'd want insurance, and in any case you have to prove that you do to get permission in many cases.
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: membership fee increase proposal
Arnold wrote:The gate example would also apply if you were just going for a walk - and would the farmer really sue you personally for that?
The farmer would claim on his/her insurance, and 'cuss and swear at all walkers because of it.
On my example of the non-member (fourth event) competitor the farmer would assume the insurance cover that you promised you had would be sufficient. Low and behold this little get-out clause is then used by the insurance company to negate their cover. Why else is the restriction in place? So..... the farmer gets upset, access is denied in future, and all those good relations go down the pan.
IMHO it is a stupid restriction, but, hey, I don't do the negotiation with the insurance company. We have to abide by the rules, check competitors for membership status and encourage new folk to join by stipulating that insurance cover is important to us and the club. Simples.
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Re: membership fee increase proposal
I'm still confused about whether the 3 event 'rule' matters
I guess it's in BO's short term interest to say "yes it does", get people to join, pay the bills.
I don't think it's in anyone's long term interest to hard sell membership to a one or two event a year type of orienteer. I think it just puts them off. Depends how it's done. On Facebook I have used gentle selling phrases like:
"You don't need to be a member of an orienteering club to go orienteering. If possible, we would like you to join after you've done 3 events as it helps support the sport financially."
ie "we would like you to", not "must".
Incidentally I find many newbies worry that they must be members before going to their first event, so it's probably worth putting something like that on all online event details.
Personally I find the concept of paid membership outdated for the 21st century. If someone feels loyalty for a club, they should be able to join for free and never leave. Think of how much easier it would be if there were no membership renewals, reminders, direct debits. You just join online for free once and then never leave (unless you unsubscribe). There could be a voluntary continuous donation scheme for committed orienteers perhaps.
I guess it's in BO's short term interest to say "yes it does", get people to join, pay the bills.
I don't think it's in anyone's long term interest to hard sell membership to a one or two event a year type of orienteer. I think it just puts them off. Depends how it's done. On Facebook I have used gentle selling phrases like:
"You don't need to be a member of an orienteering club to go orienteering. If possible, we would like you to join after you've done 3 events as it helps support the sport financially."
ie "we would like you to", not "must".
Incidentally I find many newbies worry that they must be members before going to their first event, so it's probably worth putting something like that on all online event details.
Personally I find the concept of paid membership outdated for the 21st century. If someone feels loyalty for a club, they should be able to join for free and never leave. Think of how much easier it would be if there were no membership renewals, reminders, direct debits. You just join online for free once and then never leave (unless you unsubscribe). There could be a voluntary continuous donation scheme for committed orienteers perhaps.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests