Assuming most clubs are with Richard Weston.
Excess per total claim on SI boxes was £50 from memory (this is from when I was treasurer ~5y ago).
Boxes BSF8 sportident are just over £100?
BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
44 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I think BOF are making themselves obsolete through the increased costs.
For me, they provide no value. No contact, not even to check up on me when I was a Level C/D Planner, Organiser and Controller.
In my eyes, if you have an official role in the sport which attracts there income, you should have free annual membership and regular contact...
For me, they provide no value. No contact, not even to check up on me when I was a Level C/D Planner, Organiser and Controller.
In my eyes, if you have an official role in the sport which attracts there income, you should have free annual membership and regular contact...
- MrD
- white
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:29 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Today I/we recieved the latest newsletter from BO.
One of the items brought to our attention was the chance for 20 people to sign up to learn how to attract and keep volunteers and make them feel valued.
One thing BO should understand is that failing to say thank you to directly to key officials of events such as the JK only fuels the feeling that we volunteers are NOT valued.
Apart from thanks from Andy Yeates (Major events advisor) I recieved no thanks at all from BO for the many hours of work put in to help deliver this year's JK. nor did planners, day organisers, controllers, safety officer and many others.
The result is that several experienced volunteers in the North West will no longer volunteer to be involved with major national events. The sport is poorer for it.
David McCann
Jk23 Coordinator
One of the items brought to our attention was the chance for 20 people to sign up to learn how to attract and keep volunteers and make them feel valued.
One thing BO should understand is that failing to say thank you to directly to key officials of events such as the JK only fuels the feeling that we volunteers are NOT valued.
Apart from thanks from Andy Yeates (Major events advisor) I recieved no thanks at all from BO for the many hours of work put in to help deliver this year's JK. nor did planners, day organisers, controllers, safety officer and many others.
The result is that several experienced volunteers in the North West will no longer volunteer to be involved with major national events. The sport is poorer for it.
David McCann
Jk23 Coordinator
- DM
- brown
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:47 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Len wrote:
On the basis that insuring non-members has been mentioned explicitly, what % of non-member entries are at level D events, where the risks should be lower, i.e. kinder terrain, shorter distance, assistance/coaching at hand - versus a non member at a regional or above event where clearly any risks are usually much higher.
The insurance we are talking about here for non-members is third party cover. ie personal claims against those non-members for any injury or damage they cause to others while participating at orienteering events - not harm they do to themselves or their own property. The risk of claims against individual competitors (as opposed to event organisers) is non-existent in the first place, but if anything the potential to harm people or property is lower in remote wilder areas.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Hi Pete, Hope you are well. If, as you say, the incremental cost of insurance for non-members relates solely to to third party claims against those non-members, then maybe one option to be considered is for BOF to NOT cover that risk!
Problem solved?
Problem solved?
- AndyT
- string
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:49 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I think that logic is back to front. BO insurance protects clubs and officials (and probably BO itself) against claims from third parties. That could be a claim from a participant (against something done, or not done, by the event), or from some independent party.
Having non-members participating almost certainly increases the risk. They have less understanding of rules, map symbols for out-of-bounds etc, so may inadvertently cause a problem that gives rise to a claim. If the insurance doesn't cover risks arising from non-members participating the only protection for clubs and event officials would be either to take out their own insurance (probably more expensive) or not allow non-members to participate at all.
Having non-members participating almost certainly increases the risk. They have less understanding of rules, map symbols for out-of-bounds etc, so may inadvertently cause a problem that gives rise to a claim. If the insurance doesn't cover risks arising from non-members participating the only protection for clubs and event officials would be either to take out their own insurance (probably more expensive) or not allow non-members to participate at all.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Just reading through this thread. I couldn't find the actual proposal from BO.
Honestly adding £1 to adult non members fees isn't going to make any noticeable difference in my experience if clubs are doing it that way. Many clubs have hardly any non members at events and plenty of money in the bank so can just ignore this for at least a decade. For others like our own we haven't put our prices up with inflation for a few years. A £5 entry fee 5 years ago is now worth £6.18 according to the bank of England inflation calculator, so we have been effectively reducing entry fees for years.
BO will have significant wage inflation so need extra income from levies. I think those clubs with significant numbers of non members like our own, we should just put 50p on entries and not worry about it...
Honestly adding £1 to adult non members fees isn't going to make any noticeable difference in my experience if clubs are doing it that way. Many clubs have hardly any non members at events and plenty of money in the bank so can just ignore this for at least a decade. For others like our own we haven't put our prices up with inflation for a few years. A £5 entry fee 5 years ago is now worth £6.18 according to the bank of England inflation calculator, so we have been effectively reducing entry fees for years.
BO will have significant wage inflation so need extra income from levies. I think those clubs with significant numbers of non members like our own, we should just put 50p on entries and not worry about it...
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
AndyT wrote:Hi Pete, Hope you are well. If, as you say, the incremental cost of insurance for non-members relates solely to to third party claims against those non-members, then maybe one option to be considered is for BOF to NOT cover that risk!
Problem solved?
Absolutely.
How many non-members realise or care that by entering an event they are being offered 3rd party personal liability cover. Presumably anyone who did worry about such things would already have cover for the other 23 hours of the day and 364 days of the year and that policy is unlikely to have a clause excluding running round forests.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
pete.owens wrote:
The insurance we are talking about here for non-members is third party cover. ie personal claims against those non-members for any injury or damage they cause to others while participating at orienteering events - not harm they do to themselves or their own property. The risk of claims against individual competitors (as opposed to event organisers) is non-existent in the first place, but if anything the potential to harm people or property is lower in remote wilder areas.
Very useful clarification. Thanks.
- Len
- white
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:19 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
I don't think it's been mentioned yet, apologies if so: many landowners etc specifically ask for3rd party insurance cover, and won't allow access unless it's in place. So however negligible the risk, we still need it.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
What landowners need to know is that the ORGANISER is insured for the event, not every single individual attendee at that event has 3rd part cover.
This was true two years ago, when when some attendees did not have individual 3rd party cover.
It is still true today, when some attendees still do not have individual 3rd party cover.
The main concern of landowners is not that some individual might damage some property during their run - they would expect the organiser to put this right rather than attempt to track down the particular individual. Their concern is that a participant who is injured during the event could sue the landowner for damages due to a hazard encountered on the course. They need to be reassured that they are indemnified against this risk.
This was true two years ago, when when some attendees did not have individual 3rd party cover.
It is still true today, when some attendees still do not have individual 3rd party cover.
The main concern of landowners is not that some individual might damage some property during their run - they would expect the organiser to put this right rather than attempt to track down the particular individual. Their concern is that a participant who is injured during the event could sue the landowner for damages due to a hazard encountered on the course. They need to be reassured that they are indemnified against this risk.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Thanks again Pete.
The whole BOF insurance situation needs demistifying.
I'm pretty sure it is something of a red herring though, and not in its own right a good enough justification for raising the non member levy to £2.50.
The proposal to have a new senior non member levy category at a rate of £2.50 will achieve nothing worth achieving.
The whole BOF insurance situation needs demistifying.
I'm pretty sure it is something of a red herring though, and not in its own right a good enough justification for raising the non member levy to £2.50.
The proposal to have a new senior non member levy category at a rate of £2.50 will achieve nothing worth achieving.
- AndyT
- string
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:49 pm
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
What follows comes with the usual caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an insurance professional, although I have had to spend far more of my life than I would have liked discussing this over the past four years or so.
A liability insurance policy covers the liability of the people insured by that policy. It does not, fairly obviously, cover the liability of anyone not insured under the policy.
Therefore, the first thing any insurer will do when presented with a liability claim is attempt to establish the extent to which the party(s) they insure are actually liable for whatever has gone wrong. Ideally, they want to demonstrate that someone they don't insure is partially or fully liable for the accident, to reduce the amount that they need to pay out.
The identity of that 'someone' who might bear a share of the liability will depend on the nature of the accident. It could be a participant or attendee not covered by the insurer; it could be the landowner; it could be a random member of the public who played some part in the accident. A policy which indemnifies only the event organiser's liability is not going to pay out for any liability incurred by those other people.
Some landowners appear to have cottoned on to the possibility of the event organiser's insurers pushing the liability onto the actions of uninsured participants and are now insisting on proof that "everyone involved in the event has appropriate insurance". For orienteering events, this includes participants who aren't British Orienteering members. (It also includes other people providing services as part of an event - if you've organised an event with caters or traders recently, it's quite likely that the landowner will have asked you to obtain and provide a copy of their insurance details before allowing them on site.)
The simplest way to do this is to bring non-members under the British Orienteering insurance policy, so that there is a single piece of paper that will meet the landowner's requirements.
I don't know what has caused some landowners to focus on this, although it certainly doesn't appear to be previous incidents at orienteering events. However, orienteering is not the only sport that is dependent on landowner permissions and which is having to grapple with this issue. For example, British Triathlon now requires non-members to purchase "day membership" in order to compete in an event, and is quite open about the fact that the only benefit of this is liability insurance.
A liability insurance policy covers the liability of the people insured by that policy. It does not, fairly obviously, cover the liability of anyone not insured under the policy.
Therefore, the first thing any insurer will do when presented with a liability claim is attempt to establish the extent to which the party(s) they insure are actually liable for whatever has gone wrong. Ideally, they want to demonstrate that someone they don't insure is partially or fully liable for the accident, to reduce the amount that they need to pay out.
The identity of that 'someone' who might bear a share of the liability will depend on the nature of the accident. It could be a participant or attendee not covered by the insurer; it could be the landowner; it could be a random member of the public who played some part in the accident. A policy which indemnifies only the event organiser's liability is not going to pay out for any liability incurred by those other people.
Some landowners appear to have cottoned on to the possibility of the event organiser's insurers pushing the liability onto the actions of uninsured participants and are now insisting on proof that "everyone involved in the event has appropriate insurance". For orienteering events, this includes participants who aren't British Orienteering members. (It also includes other people providing services as part of an event - if you've organised an event with caters or traders recently, it's quite likely that the landowner will have asked you to obtain and provide a copy of their insurance details before allowing them on site.)
The simplest way to do this is to bring non-members under the British Orienteering insurance policy, so that there is a single piece of paper that will meet the landowner's requirements.
I don't know what has caused some landowners to focus on this, although it certainly doesn't appear to be previous incidents at orienteering events. However, orienteering is not the only sport that is dependent on landowner permissions and which is having to grapple with this issue. For example, British Triathlon now requires non-members to purchase "day membership" in order to compete in an event, and is quite open about the fact that the only benefit of this is liability insurance.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
BMBO requires non-members to take out day membership for each event, but day membership is free.
But non-members do pay a surcharge of £1-2 per event
Not sure what this adds to the discussion.
But non-members do pay a surcharge of £1-2 per event
Not sure what this adds to the discussion.
- Karen
- red
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:50 am
Re: BOF AGM Proposal - New Non Member Levy £2.50 - VOTE
Yes, I believe the general principles of the BMBO arrangement are similar to British Triathlon: as an adult 'day member', you pay a £2 surcharge per event, and the benefits you get from doing so are (a) being allowed to enter the event and (b) liability insurance while participating at the event.
We considered whether a similar model would be appropriate for British Orienteering, but consultation with clubs showed (perhaps unsurprisingly) that there was little support for a model that would require newcomers to register with British Orienteering before they were allowed enter an event, even if that registration was free of charge.
I would personally still favour a model where we had improved central data collection about non-members, as that brings all sorts of benefits, even if it's done as a strong nudge rather than making it compulsory - something similar to the SOLV-Nr used in Switzerland (or Parkrun registration, to give a non-orienteering but perhaps more familiar example). But that's something that can be explored independently of the current AGM proposals.
We considered whether a similar model would be appropriate for British Orienteering, but consultation with clubs showed (perhaps unsurprisingly) that there was little support for a model that would require newcomers to register with British Orienteering before they were allowed enter an event, even if that registration was free of charge.
I would personally still favour a model where we had improved central data collection about non-members, as that brings all sorts of benefits, even if it's done as a strong nudge rather than making it compulsory - something similar to the SOLV-Nr used in Switzerland (or Parkrun registration, to give a non-orienteering but perhaps more familiar example). But that's something that can be explored independently of the current AGM proposals.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
44 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests