Entry Fee breakdown

[MIE]

If an event makes a loss, does it not still have to pay levy?

Correct , the levy is payable on the number of runners, regardless of the profitability of the event

i cant remember who it was exactly I was talking to - it was a key organiser at BOC I think - who said that BOF were going to take their Super BOF/JK Levy Tax (which I think is a flat 4k (or maybe 6k?)) that is applied to BOC/JK even if the event made a loss. Luckily I think it generated the money needed to create this large profit to pay BOF what it asks for, even though the wo/man hours for the event, the financial risk and the organisational burdens are borne by the local/organising club(s)/region.

BOF work on a 2/3 share of the profit for JK and BOC/BRC (the other 1/3 goes to the region) BUT the organisers need to budget to get a profit of at least the amount of the levy. That is around £2 per run, so for this years JK that is around £18,000 to BOF and £9,000 to the region. Almost as much as the landowners got

[SeanC]

Ravinous, I certainly do live in an ideal world. I moved from Dartford a couple of years ago.

A fiver from 10,000 orienteers to spend on development could go a long way and have a big impact couldn't it? In my ideal world none would be waisted, but in the real world some would. But even if all of it disappeared uselessly, it's only a fiver. Worth the risk IMHO.

BOF paying clubs to organise big events and having a team of expert organisers sounds great, but how will BOF get the money to pay for this? Doesn't this mean money from us through levies and/or membership fees? I can see benefits at a local level, the south east event calendar for April/May was a bit thin this year. I suspect this was partly due to a hangover from all the work needed for the JK.

[Mrs H]

The "Poison Chalice" effect of staging a large event is something I'm presently researching with a view to writing about it in an autumn edition of CS. It is becoming a very real problem in my opinion (experience).

Sean - it's a great idea - but what will happen to our £5 in the real world - they will pay for the appointment of yet another development manager who puts all their efforts into promoting school orienteering - not a good return on our money. Of course in an ideal world it would be used to encourage people with flair, imagination, enthusiasm and energy to work on the sport at the inter face with a sustainable public

[RJ]

Of course they do provide financial support.....

to encourage people with flair, imagination, enthusiasm and energy to work on the sport

within a school orienteering scenario, .........with a great deal of success.

Mrs H, I would suggest you stop digging that particular hole!!

[Mrs H]

Well it's been going on for so long now we are all eagerly awaiting the bulge of M/W 21s in the sport at any moment

[mike g]

Going back to the original question, normally about 6% of the entry fee pays for the costs of online entries (e.g. Fabian4 charge the organisers 5%+VAT), but apparently that isn't the case for the WOC selection races - see Entry Systems thread.

I'm not criticising the organisers without knowing all the information, but would just observe that last year the Scots (not sure which clubs) managed to organise very high quality WOC selection races - probably the best orienteering weekend of the year - with very reasonable entry fees.

[SeanC]

Mrs H, I think you are being a bit hard on BOF. It's my understanding that the schools development money comes from the government with strings attached, the money has to be spend in certain ways - on developing orienteering in/with schools. The fiver per person would be our money, without strings, or at least with our own strings. The money could be spent in different ways depending on local needs. For my club it might be publicity, coaching and some new maps, for other clubs it might be help setting up a MADO style series of local events and for some clubs it might indeed be schools development.

Of course, we cannot be certain that the money will be of any benefit to the sport. However we can be certain that not supplying the money will have no benefit to the sport.

Looking forward to reading your article on major events in CompassSport. Since this thread proposes a solution it would be nice if the article also talked about the solution(s), and the likely financial cost (since this could be a sticking point).

[Mrs H]

Yes I understand about the ring fenced money - otherwise i might be a lot harder on BOF than I am - but I interpreted your suggestion of a £5 development levy as being made and administered by BOF - once the money is in their hands i have my doubts that we will be able to control where it is spent.

As for my article - I don't think i have EVER highlighted an issue without suggesting a solution - what would be the point of that?

[Oldman]

There was a good article in a recent Focus showing typical event costs.

[awk]

A fiver from 10,000 orienteers to spend on development could go a long way and have a big impact couldn't it?

Depends how it's used. It's very easy to get through £50k and achieve very little when it comes to development.

within a school orienteering scenario, .........with a great deal of success.

Depends how you measure that success. If it's more young adults/older juniors, which is the real problem area, then I have to admit, I don't see it. And the schools development focus is a good decade or more old now. If it's schools events and numbers orienteering at school, then possibly, but that in my view is only a means to an end, at least from the sport's perspective.

[EddieH]

Quite right. University is really the time to get new people at a stage when a massively higher percentage maintain their commitment.

[RJ]

within a school orienteering scenario, .........with a great deal of success.

Depends how you measure that success......

How about...... participation numbers at the school event series..... participation numbers for juniors at club informal events..... numbers attending the club junior training sessions..... participation numbers on Yellow/Orange/LtGreen courses at District events..... numbers involved with the regional junior squad..... numbers chosen for BOF summer tours..... numbers chosen for international representation..... numbers of parents brought into the sport on the back of the juniors..... numbers going to Uni O clubs.....

Whatever the school development is doing it is happening at the base of the pyramid. It takes a long time to have a significant effect on the 'visible' top. School work may very well have been going on for a decade, but it is only in the last handful of years that it has become 'widespread and effective'. When working with 8 and 9 year olds it will be quite a while before Uni numbers increase. But it is obvious that the Uni O clubs are on the 'up' at the moment.... long may it continue!

Quite right. University is really the time to get new people at a stage when a massively higher percentage maintain their commitment.

Yes Eddie, it is ONE of the routes for increased numbers.... and a very valuable one, because often it produces the 'elite' orienteer and the role model for the sport.

But there are other routes.... and ALL of them should be pursued.... not to select a preferred one above others just because you think it will work. Each club should pursue a course of action for development that suits its resources and 'population audience'.

In the end it is participation numbers that we want. It is up to the sport, and in particular the club, to select from those participating those orienteers that have real potential, nurture them, and develop their skills.... and show them the way to the top of the pyramid.

BOF are rightly puting their efforts into schools work and building the School/Club links. This is government policy..... and far brighter people than us have developed this strategy as the way forward, having access to far more information than we as individuals have. I believe they are right, but then I know there will always be the sceptics!

[Ed]

This is government policy..... and far brighter people than us have developed this strategy

I hope you don't mean this statement to be taken seriously.

I suspect a more accurate assessment would be

people with just as little (or possibly even less) clue to us as to what would really get and maintain people in the sport have developed this strategy as it was Friday afternoon, the coffee and biscuits had run out, it sounded plausible and relatively easy to implement and therefore acceptable and they needed something to be presented on the Monday morning.

[RJ]

Very witty!!!!!

[SeanC]

You have to view things from the government's perspective.

All politicians want to improve school sports. Maybe because they went into politics to improve people's lives, maybe because there are lots of votes in it. PE teachers like my (non orienteering) wife are generally more competent, dedicated and skillful than they are given credit for. She, for example, is qualified to teach orienteering and would do a much better job of it than "experts" such as me! However she doesn't have the time and/or expertise to draw an orienteering map of the school grounds, investigate the best local permanent course, set up an inter-schools orienteering league etc.

So what do the government do? They could try and double the number of PE teachers, but that would be expensive and many schools have difficuties recruiting female PE teachers already. So the obvious solution is to get the orienteers working with the schools. Children are more likely to be inspired to start a sport if they meet experts in that sport, PE teachers get ongoing training in that sport and clubs have the opportunity to publicise their sport and club. A win win situation.

Well that's the theory and this probably works well for bigger sports with strong local clubs. But down in my (I suspect rather typical) local orienteering club, school sports aren't our top priority. We are too fragile. Our immediate priorities are putting on more events, improving our event structure, finishing some maps, improving our coaching and publicising the events we currently have. We would welcome support in doing this. The schools initiative will/does make it easier to recruit youngsters for sure, but these youngsters need a strong local scene, to attract them and to keep them.

So let's stop giving BOF a hard time for developing orienteering in schools. But lets use some of our money to help with our immediate aims. The two strategies can work together rather than being an either/or debate.

I'm a little sad to hear the nopesport aristocracy tell me that giving money to BOF is likely to be waisted. Does anyone other than RJ want to come to their defence? And if giving more money to BOF for development isn't going to work, where should the money go?