New Levy proposals

[Mrs H]

Has anyone got any thoughts on the new levy proposals in the agm papers. basically all events will be subject to the same levy which will be callibrated as follows:
first 75 competitors - levy free
the next 76 - 250 competitors levied at £1.50 (including juniors)
250+ levied at £2.50 (including juniors)

If adopted it will knock a fair sized hole in my MADO finances and will almost certainly mean I will have to put up the junior fee which is only £1 anyway which seems a shame although I think i approve of the scheme in principle. Perhaps raising the thresholds a bit might achieve a better balance - 100/300 would be more encouraging to those of us putting on successful local events.

but what do the rest of you think?

[EddieH]

So what happens if you have 300 schoolhildren at a schools event? That's £300 deducted before any other expenses!

[andy]

After a short discussion we came to the conclusion it would/could be good for smaller events but it would rip large event budgets to shreds (such as the 6-days which we were discussing).

I know someone who has quizzed BOF about it (saying: well everyone will have to put up junior fees now) and they apparently said something along the lines of 'juniors will be represented by the 75 / 75-250 competitors'.

Net result: everyone will put up their junior entry fees, and £1 to a junior fee is a big %age! Can't see how this can in any way encourage participation.

[IanD]

I wonder if there's been an oversight in drafting the proposal? One would have thought that such a swinging increase in the levy rate for juniors (from 25p local/district, 50p regional in 2008) would have been justified in the supporting statement. Instead all I can see is a proposal that a few selected junior-only events be exempted, with a view to "encouraging junior participation".

We want juniors to compete more than just a couple of times a year. Under these proposals, their runs would normally attract a levy which is higher than the current junior entry fee at many local events in my area (and yes they do get well over 75 junior participants). While obviously clubs can choose to make a loss on each junior runner, this hardly seems to "encourage" junior participation.

Personally, I like simple systems, and I would suggest simply inserting the word "adult" before each mention of "participant" in this proposal. In other words, no levy for juniors at all, reflecting the much lower entry fees that most events charge juniors, and incidentally doing away with the need for a committee to select which junior-focused events would be exempted. Probably the (adult) levy rates would need to be higher than in the printed proposal to compensate for the absence of a junior levy.

[distracted]

How about events where over X% of competitors are juniors/novices/independents pay Y% of the levy? Obviously numbers to be determined to make it an attractive proposal - because as well as reducing the amount of levy paid per competitor it would perhaps also encourage local events that are designed to increase participation...

[LostAgain]

I like simple systems, and I would suggest simply inserting the word "adult" before each mention of "participant" in this proposal. In other words, no levy for juniors at all, reflecting the much lower entry fees that most events charge juniors, and incidentally doing away with the need for a committee to select which junior-focused events would be exempted. Probably the (adult) levy rates would need to be higher than in the printed proposal to compensate for the absence of a junior levy.

Totally agree with IanD. Juniors should be exempt from levy.

[DM]

If this goes ahead, our Saturday events will turn from break even to loss making and we may as well stop them. The entry fee we charge for all is £1 and we are getting increasing numbers.

Put it up to cover the levy and I fear numbers will fall back, not what we want overall as this is the year of participation.....

Having said that if they drop enough we become levy free, great for finances but not numbers running.

I missed the item about levys but I did notice in the papers I got this week that junior participation had gone down and this is a concern. Seems to me an odd way to correct the issue of junior participation.

[roadrunner]

As far as I can see, the proposal will benefit small regional events (I'm sure another thread mentioned some of these only attracting 300 or so competitors), and disadvantage larger district events and those with a disproportionate fraction of juniors.

It's also going to complicate budgetting, because while most costs are either fixed or a fixed amount per competitor, this one goes up disproportionately. For example, with 250 competitors, the average levy works out at £1.05 each. But for every extra competitor, it's an extra £2.50.

[Mrs H]

But there won't be any regional or district events by the time this comes in will there? I guess its an attempt to claw back the levy differential between district and regional events when the new event structure comes in.

I think it's workable but the increments need to be carefully thought out - and I think on reflection that I agree with those who said juniors should be levy free. It gives out the right messages.

My guess is that BOF have released the figures knowing they are going to have to make concessions - and the junior levy is probably the one they will "most generously" concede to

[SIman]

I would like to add my support to IanD's "no junior levies" proposal. Will this be an issue at the AGM?

[IanD]

Will this be an issue at the AGM?

The levy arrangements will certainly be voted on at the AGM. My grasp of procedure is not sufficient to know how to propose an amendment - whether it has to be done in advance or can be done from the floor on the night.

Anyway, I can't promise to be at the AGM, as I am involved with organising a little orienteering event the following day and may be too busy. If someone would like to run with a "no junior levy" amendment, then please go ahead. I would suggest starting by contacting either BOF office or the sponsors of the current proposal (as listed in the AGM papers) to see why they are currently suggesting the same levy rate for juniors and adults, and to get a reaction from them to an adult-only levy.

[RJ]

It appears that the levy scheme applies to all events. The club informal event all the way to National events. The scheme probably won’t make any difference to most of these events, except, for those that have high participation. That is probably fair.... since I suspect that the surplus that these popular events make will end up sitting in club bank accounts and not ‘working’ for the sport’s long term future.

However, school only events are going to suffer dramatically. Our Primary School Series, for which we got recognition (special mention) in the Club of the Year competition will become non-sustainable. Currently, with the (2007/08) levy system, we have six events and a final, attracting 265 average. Levy in 2007 worked out at £112. The proposed 2009 levy would be £2100, just a mere 1875% increase. (Sounds like Zimbabwean hyper-inflation.)

There are solutions.....
BOF makes these non-mainstream orienteering events levy free, or charges a fixed amount to cover insurance. The events could be declared ‘special and levy free’ by Junior competitions committee/group. But they are not elected(?) and therefore not subject to democratic influence.
We charge £1.13 per head levy for each event.... and ask the parents.... the Education Authority.... the school to pay that. Anyone want to do it for us? Perhaps Jenny James can send a bill (for £2100) to Cumbria County Council direct from BOF.... I’ll supply the address.
We hope the AGM will throw the resolution out.

Most of the input into these events is volunteer effort for which there is no charge. The events can only be staged because of this volunteer contribution. The 265 participants (actually 400 individuals attending one or more of the events) are potential future orienteers. About 40 are already within the club system. BOF really should be patient here, and wait till more of these 400 join the club and the mainstream sport. Then they are welcome to the levy AND of course, a membership subscription.

I question whether Management Committee, who must see this levy proposal as part of the BOF Vision, is using ‘joined up thinking’ where the schools events are concerned.

I do hope I don’t have to vote the whole proposal down just to protect nine year’s work!

[Adventure Racer]

It appears that the levy scheme applies to all events. The club informal event all the way to National events. The scheme probably won’t make any difference to most of these events, except, for those that have high participation. That is probably fair.... since I suspect that the surplus that these popular events make will end up sitting in club bank accounts and not ‘working’ for the sport’s long term future.

Unless of course the event with high participation has a high participation of juniors, despite not being a schools event and also attracting seniors (competition's pretty hot at the top!), and is budgeted to keep junior prices down by largely covering the costs of running the event in the entry fees of the seniors, charging the juniors a nominal amount. Such an event might not make any surplus at all to sit in the club bank accounts, with any money it does make being rolled back in to the future development of such events. I wonder if I can think of any such events round here?

The point being that it's junior entrants for whom a special (low to zero levy) case needs to be made, rather than junior-only events. The events I'm thinking of can't be the only ones where with the new levy proposals every junior entrant more than 75 (let alone 250) would make the event lose money.

[DM]

The point being that it's junior entrants for whom a special (low to zero levy) case needs to be made, rather than junior-only events. The events I'm thinking of can't be the only ones where with the new levy proposals every junior entrant more than 75 (let alone 250) would make the event lose money.

Exactly, looking at the proposal it appears the only events being considered for freedom from levy are Peter Palmers and Yvette Baker Final (but not qualifiers). If we looked at the qualifiers we would find a higher proportion of juniors than normal.

We went to the enjoyable Meroc event on Saturday, planned as a schools league but open in a limited way to adults, ie parents. I'm pretty sure the finances would be wrecked if the new levy was applied to all juniors there.

I am also beginning to question exactly how accurate the BOF figures for junior participation are. Do they include all the local events that happen around the country, the MDOC Saturday events are just one example and the trend we see is the opposite to the national one. RJ plus team are increasing numbers in the Lakes, Mrs H and team the same in MADO land. Can anyone clarify how the statistics are built?

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

'looking at the proposal it appears the only events being considered for freedom from levy are Peter Palmers and Yvette Baker Final'

They are given as examples.