New BOF Membership proposals

[ifititches]

well, I can't resist congratulating Ranald for sticking his head up very publicly from behind the parapet, and his well chosen moment to slip unremarked onto forum. Seems to me Dids co was entertaining behind the bikesheds, some mates were trying to pull Becks' pigtails, the juniors were being sucked inside the mind of Peter B, and Porky was dreaming up some great track titles (?on his journey home from work) and, surreally, BOF draws inspiration for a powerpoint presentation from the great and varied world of nopesport. I love it!

"Oh brave new world that has such people in't!

PS some Mac users don't like Emit

[Mrs H.]

Well, I agree Ifit, one can only suppose "misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows" but has he drowned his books that he cannot use his own website for such an explanation i - I thopught that's what it was there for

[Klebe]

Rather harsh comment Mrs H.
Credit to Ranald for coming on here and letting us 'posters' know that our comments are being taken into account. Feel you were rather ungracious. I'd rather read a post from someone like Ranald on Nopesport than spend hours trawling through the official BOF website searching for the same information. (provided it was there and not 'under construction')

[Mrs H.]

I didn't mean to sound harsh Klebe (still havn't worked out who you are yet - a youngish Walton chaser possibly?) Perhaps I was over anxious to match Ifit's erudition - my point was merely should you be reading it here first? as opposed to the official BOF website. I do however think it was far more functional and very upfront of Ranald to put it here because that's where it will be seen - it just not the way it should be that's all

[PorkyFatBoy]

I think we should be honoured that Ranald has chosen to share it with us first - he obviously recognises that sometimes we talk sense.

I suppose that the diffiuclty in posting proposals on the BOF site is that, much as we did, people will perhaps draw incorrect conclusions and prejudge the situation. It should be for official stuff - i.e. when it's been agreed upon.

I think we should perhaps encourage BOF to use Nopesport.com as a sounding board for their ideas - unofficial councillors if you like? That would be real blue sky thinking![/i]

[ifititches]

"erudite" eh, just fell off my chair! Have wondered for a while if BOF website was going to open up own discussion forum, but think it's great that they're watching the news develop here (cue BOF office.. "hold the front page of "Focus" there's something just coming up on nopesport!")

[Simon]

You will be aware from last year’s AGM and recent correspondence on nopesport that Council and Management Committee have been looking at the options for BOF membership.

The proposals are up on the BOF site (here).

[awk]

my point was merely should you be reading it here first? as opposed to the official BOF website.

Hmmm. I wonder why I get the impression that the man couldn't do right in your eyes whatever he did.

Having said that, I do think the comparison in the presentation with other "outdoor sports" is unfortunate: one doesn't have to be a member of NGBs like the BCU and BMC to be able to enjoy these sports (which is effectively what the new scheme will require), and yet their membership benefits are generally better. I remain convinced that the way BOF should be going is to make the package sufficiently attractive that people would want to join, not to bounce people into joining because they don't see another way of doing so. Just breeds resentment, and a feeling of paying for nothing much.

[HOCOLITE]

Awk I agree with your comments, make BOF irresistable, not make it seem like a financial weight that has to be incurred to take part. I think the current proposals will lead to reduced membership as a number of existing club only members will not like bully boy tactics and drop out of the sport. Also I think potential members will not see BOF as a beginner friendly organisation more as a money grabbing organisation.

[Simon]

Mark Twain once noted that there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

My specific debate with statistics would be the line: Only 65% of club members are BOF members.

While this figure is, one assumes, correct it leaves an important question: How many of the remaining 1/3 would actually become BOF members if pushed (as suggested in these proposals)?

Me feeling is that this would not be that many. To consider it further we must look at how many of those people orienteer regularly, or whether they orienteer at all. Looking at this for my club I was left with the feeling that the club only members were mainly non-active orienteers who were remaining in contact with the club. Such people are unlikely to stump up to BOF.

[PorkyFatBoy]

I think we will still need club only membership. In rugby clubs, you join as a playing member or as a social (i.e. drinking) member. May be club only's could compete in events organised by that club and BOF membership would be needed to compete in other clubs' events?

When I was talking to my friend who runs a rugby club, said "but why would you want to join the national federation?" - the club is a member of the RFU and pay a levy to them. The whole sport is much more club focused.

[Mrs H.]

May be club only's could compete in events organised by that club and BOF membership would be needed to compete in other clubs' events?

Exactly! I was reading the Wrekin magazine and there was a letter from an old guy who said how much he enjoyed keeping in touch with the sport through the news letter - even though he was'nt competing anymore. i know a lady in our club who turns up at the odd local event - and has done good work for the club - but neither of these people are ever going to join BOF so what will happen - the clubs will loose them and their subs and their support - exactly who is this proposal helping.

Awk wrote:

Hmmm. I wonder why I get the impression that the man couldn't do right in your eyes whatever he did.

Yeah, yeah, whatever! (is that how you say it Jene?)

[samsonite]

i think it would be

ye ye woteva

[Simon]

I think we will still need club only membership. In rugby clubs, you join as a playing member or as a social (i.e. drinking) member. May be club only's could compete in events organised by that club and BOF membership would be needed to compete in other clubs' events?

At which stage we are in a position no further forward than the current situation.

Seemingly missing from all of this proposal is some kind of costing, giving an idea of how BOF sees this changing income.

Event fees will go up (as the levy increases), but not by that much. Will this affect the numbers attending events?

Membership fees will go down. Will the increase in members happen? To what level (i.e. how much of that 35% will join)? And will the increase in membership generate the required income?

ye ye woteva

Also needs some suitable wave bye hand gesture

[Godders]

I'd agree with the comments about club only membership. Interlopers has a number of club only members who've moved away from Edinburgh and like to keep in touch and a few very infrequent orienteers. But we certainly don't have anywhere near the 35% quoted.

BOF would do well to pay attention to the debates round a similar membership scheme operated by Scottish Athletics for the last few years. Membership, at a rate of about £15 per senior is compulsary for championship races. At all other races there is a £2 levy for non members. Since this was introduced some races have refused / not bothered to collect the £2 levy and in any case have no method of checking if you are a member - you just say yes or quote any old membership number if you can't remember. Some hill races have been organised under FRA rules to avoid this and as a result some people have not bothered to join Scottish Athletics, who have now responded by saying they will withdraw funding from hill running. Not a pretty debate.

I can see a lot of people at the extremes of the UK wondering what the value of joining BOF is. Of the benefits listed on the BOF website the first 4 are of very limited or no relevance to people in those areas who don't travel for more than a couple of hours to get to an event.

Having a surcharge of £3 to £5 to non-members will look extortionate on top of entry fees of £4 or so for a colour coded event and will surely put off the new members we are so desperate to attract. It also adds a lot of work to event officials to work out who is a BOF member and how much to charge them.