New Levy proposals

[RJ]

BOF have arranged for junior only events to be considered by the Junior Competitions Group for levy relief. You have to apply to JCG with details and ask for consideration. If any junior 'heavy' event has a case to make I would suggest they make an application. There would appear to be several examples in this thread already being offered. BTW, do you think it is possible to run an event within an event? For example, the YBT qualifier events. The YBTQ event could be junior only, but run alongside another event, at the same time, at the same place, using the same courses with just the seniors taking part, plus the juniors not in the YBTQ competition. Sounds a bit of a nightmare though.

We have always weighted the junior entry fee so that the seniors effectively help to offset the cost of the event for the juniors. Our event finances up to now have been designed with that in mind. Your finances AR for your events seem to change that balance. To what extent should the general orienteering senior participant subsidise the juniors? To what extent should 'club funds' help to subsidise the special intro events where there are a high proportion of juniors?

We have to have a strong central NGB, and we have to find a way of paying for it. I am prepared to support the Treasurer in her proposal, since an avenue for levy relief is available.

[SJC]

We have to have a strong central NGB, and we have to find a way of paying for it. I am prepared to support the Treasurer in her proposal, since an avenue for levy relief is available.

Whilst agreeing that the above might work, it is going to create a bit of a beauracratic nightmare in deciding which events get levy relief and which don't.
The 'juniors only' events are fairly easy to identify.
However, for events like the YBT qualifiers, schools leagues with an adult course for parents/helpers, and so on; would these get relief or not ? and if they did then how would the relief work ?
They might get relief for everyone - which would probably generate a proliferation of fictitious schools leagues with very few junior participants; or relief only for the juniors - which is effectively what a number of postings have asked for.

[Adventure Racer]

We have always weighted the junior entry fee so that the seniors effectively help to offset the cost of the event for the juniors. Our event finances up to now have been designed with that in mind. Your finances AR for your events seem to change that balance. To what extent should the general orienteering senior participant subsidise the juniors? To what extent should 'club funds' help to subsidise the special intro events where there are a high proportion of juniors?

I did say "largely covering the costs of running the event in the entry fees of the seniors", which sounds much the same as your events. I don't know the exact finances, but would expect that we do at present make a small profit on every extra junior entrant, though we certainly couldn't afford to run the events without the senior entry fees (it's not exactly bad value for a senior!)

As others have said, applying for relief for junior heavy events (or even just junior only events) sounds like a bit of a beurocratic nightmare when they could just have decreased levys for juniors, which seems to be what everybody wants.

[DM]

'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.

Fair comment, it was the word final that made me read the list as a complete one.

I personally don't think we would get a lot of new schools leagues popping up, if we did it would be obvious.

Coming back to my other question, can anyone clarify how junior numbers are compiled? We may be misrepresenting what is really happening which appears to be a steady increase in junior number from 2002 to 2006. I don't see any reason why the numbers should break this trend in 2007. Is it possible some types of events are counted in previous years but not in 2007.

[roadrunner]

BTW, do you think it is possible to run an event within an event? For example, the YBT qualifier events. The YBTQ event could be junior only, but run alongside another event, at the same time, at the same place, using the same courses with just the seniors taking part, plus the juniors not in the YBTQ competition. Sounds a bit of a nightmare though.

That's not far off what BKO did for the YBT final in December 2006 - if my memory serves me correctly, the YBT runners went off in a separate start block from the rest, and I think they had to be pre-entered, while the rest was, I think, a normal District event. Certainly, looking at the results, YBT and non-YBT runners shared the same courses.

[Mrs H]

As I tried to say in my most recent CompassSport column, one of the primary considerations when introducing any change to the sport should be "How does this impact on the volunteers who have to deliver it?" If the answer is that it makes their life harder then it is unlikely to receive any real grass roots support.

On the face of it this scheme was simple if not particularly fair. Now you start talking about exemptions for junior only events it ceases to be simple or fair - another job for the junior event organisers - to persuade the JCG they should be exempt as well as get the backs up of those who prefer a more mixed developmental approach.

All events with the possible exception of the World Masters are seeking to encourage junior participation - not all of us happen to think that junior-only events are the most sustainable and productive ways of doing it.

Like RJ - i have also changed my mind on the scheme in the light of more detail. How can it be equitable for juniors who attend developmental events with their families to pay levies when those going to junior only events will not?

And I actually wonder whether there could be a legal issue in the face of such blatant discrimination - I wonder what the Child Protection in Sport Unit would make of it!

[graeme]

one of the primary considerations when introducing any change to the sport should be "How does this impact on the volunteers who have to deliver it?" If the answer is that it makes their life harder then it is unlikely to receive any real grass roots support.

This seems to be the real strength of the proposal, no levy dodging by changing the level of the event, no ambiguity deciding who the juniors are
(Family on white? M18 running up? Students on a concession rate?) Simply relating the size of the event to the number of people has admirable clarity.

Clubs needs to look at the big picture. BOF is going to take some of your income: you can figure out how to pay. Raising the Senior rate to cut the Junior rate wont make much financial difference over the year, all it will do is make life harder for organisers.

Clubs set a budget then decide how to subsidise juniors. We don't get a cheaper rate for printing junior's maps. We don't get a cheaper rate for junior's toilets. We don't get cheaper land access for juniors. And we dont expect BOF to spend less time on junior issues because juniors pay them less levy. So we already subsidise juniors for all these things, subsidising the levy is no big deal.

Anyway, most juniors don't pay the entry fee anyway. You're really asking for volunteers to do more work to subsidise parents...

[RJ]

I agree with you graeme..... the proposed new levy system has merit, and will make the life of the volunteer organiser easier. In fact, having analysed a few events, the levy return will not be a great deal different.... just an increase for the very high participation ones. And I think it is a good way forward.

But it seems there always has to be a.... however!.... looking at the 2007 levy return on our school events, particularly the Primary series of seven events with high participation, the situation dramatically changes. The 2007 levy return worked out as £9.78 (actual). Now, reworking that as a 2009 levy return I find that the levy is £1329.00

If I now accept your reasoning that 'why should the sport subsidise junior events', and accept John Morris' (seconder to the proposal) interpretation that it is just 'Mars Bar money' when worked out per head, per event, and that the School, Education Department or Parents can pay, then I have to go and find that money. Now you really are making the life of THIS volunteer difficult!!

So is the JCG route for levy relief in THIS case appropriate?

[roadrunner]

Having thought about this a bit more and read the other posts, I'm coming round to agreeing with Mrs H and the others who said that there should be no levy for juniors (or at least, a lower levy as now).

Getting rid of the dependence on level of event makes some sense, because clubs might try to register an event at a lower level than it really is to save on the levy.

Having some sort of dependence on numbers also makes some sense, otherwise small club training events will become prohibitively expensive - and the thrust at the moment seems to be to get clubs to put on more small events.

But having those junior-only events that are exempt decided by a committee makes the whole thing subjective, and is bound to give rise to controversy.

[distracted]

But having those junior-only events that are exempt decided by a committee makes the whole thing subjective, and is bound to give rise to controversy.

...and is yet another committee to be formed, which slows down the whole process and make things far more convoluted than they need be.

As has been said (and contrary to my earlier suggestion, which also complicates things) the levy system should be simple to understand and administrate, whilst promoting the vision of British Orienteering. In this case it's the "more people" part of the MP3, which probably translates to "more juniors" in many parts of the country. The proposed system is certainly a simplification, but as many of these introductory series grow in stature and numbers it doesn't then encourage the hosting of regular value for money local events, exactly the type of event the majority of people agree needs to be put on regularly to increase numbers within the sport.

[awk]

but as many of these introductory series grow in stature and numbers it doesn't then encourage the hosting of regular value for money local events, exactly the type of event the majority of people agree needs to be put on regularly to increase numbers within the sport.

Having done some quick calculations, I don't think it will have any adverse effect either on 'normal' local events: the figures generally come out broadly equivalent for most of the ones I looked at. But...they didn't include the events specifically targetting juniors, where as RJ points out, the impact could be pretty dire. And however much it might be "Mars Bar" money for some, we're still competing against sports which are a lot cheaper (the last set of cross-country races I took my children from school to were free).

I'd go with rebalancing the levy to base it on the number of adults attending (leaving clubs to decide how they actually raise the money), or alternatively (and still pretty simple I would have thought) make each junior equal to a fraction of an adult for levy purposes. Certainly simpler than having to submit your event to a committee for dispensation etc., which strikes me as unnecessary work.

[Scott]

Getting rid of the dependence on level of event makes some sense, because clubs might try to register an event at a lower level than it really is to save on the levy.

Straying away from the topic of junior rates, I think I'd go further than saying that simplifying the system makes "some sense": how on earth does anybody decide what level an event "really" is anyway? At the moment, the sole advantage of registering as a C3 rather than a C4 is inclusion in the ranking lists (unless I'm missing something major here). After all, there's nothing to stop a C4 with a colour-coded course structure from assigning age-classes to specific courses and producing age-class results (much in the manner of the recent Events Structure Review proposals), so why pay double the levy?

Not an entirely hypothetical question, by the way: we seriously considered whether last year's Oxford City Race should be registered as O3S (given that it had the attendance of a modest C3) or O4S, before eventually plumping for the latter because we simply couldn't see anything to be gained other than another quid on the entrance fee. So yes: tying the levy rates to the size of the event, rather than some notional idea of "level", is a good idea.

EDIT: though I think I agree that there should still be a significant (ie similar to current levels) levy discount for juniors at all events

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

One or two thoughts as a result of reading this debate about junior levies and to try to widen the discussion:
1. Many people seem to think that raising the levy on juniors would, of necessity, mean increasing the junior entry fees. Maybe it would but a club could pay levy from another source if it wanted to.
2. How much research has been done by clubs to see whether an increase in entry fees causes a reduction in participation? Does a £1 junior entry fee mean more people turn up that, say, a £2 entry fee? I suspect that no-one knows but I would be happy to hear that someone has found out the answer.
3. My club has huge school participation figures from festivals and schools competitions with no entry fees. In the case of the festivals schools are charged to take part by the Education Authority which runs the festivals (with the help of some club coaches) as they take part in school time and are advertised as being 'educational'. The club sells maps to the Education Authority in the same way as maps are sold to a council to sell at a permanent orienteering course in a park. In the case of the school competitions which are for teams of (max) 12 there is no entry fee and costs are covered by the club - from other grants, other profit making enterprises etc.
4. Accessibility - is this the key to whether there will be increased participation? It's been said elsewhere but maybe parents are not inclined to give up lots of time to take their children orienteering when the sport is not on the doorstep.

None of what I have said means that I am pro or 'agin' but just trying to add some other ideas to the mix.

[Mrs H]

but maybe parents are not inclined to give up lots of time to take their children orienteering when the sport is not on the doorstep..

which is why you are far more likely to be successful in developing the sport (as opposed to just bumping up your participation figures) if you make it a whole family event where everyone gets a go and not just a coat holding exercise.

Also the reason why you cannot differentiate between juniors at junior only events and juniors at family focused events. i'll try and get hold of the CPSU for their interpretation of the proposal befor the weekend if I have time.

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

Mrs H said "far more likely to be successful in developing the sport (as opposed to just bumping up your participation figures) if you make it a whole family event where everyone gets a go and not just a coat holding exercise"

Of course! I wasn't advocating one rather than the other - we need to attract people of all ages to try orienteering and, hopefully, gaining new members and, as those new members gain confidence, new volunteers to continue the sport we all enjoy so passionately.

I was pointing out that school sessions can be separate from mainstream club activities in the same way as school hockey/football etc is separate from what goes on in the local club. It can be part of the marketing of the sport and the fact that orienteering is part of what goes on in School Sport Partnerships, Youth Games, the curriculum etc is good for that awareness raising. The participation figures which are generated help to make the case for national and regional funding, much of which finds its way (through the school/club links funds) to clubs to support their development projects.