Page 2 of 2
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 6:16 pm
by Dee
Pingu wrote:Even simpler would be for:
Clubs to offer electronic entries.
Entry fees to remain unchanged.
Clubs to deduct the cost of their transaction fees, when settling their levies from the Event (or claim a refund from the Slalom Committee if no levies are payable).
The Slalom Committee to cover the transaction costs of full refunds (if a race in cancelled, in accordance with the rules).
Rationale:
The Committee has been running a financial surplus for several years, so perfectly affordable. Based on the quoted charges, I would estimate the annual cost at less than £3,000, depending upon the mix of single & double events and the proportion of paddlers taking advantage of the payment method.
It would act as an incentive for clubs to encourage On-Line entries
No complicated enhanced fees to worry about.
(The above is my personal opinion as a Penguin, and not that of the Committee)
My first reaction to this was to draft an alternative rule, but unless others shout loudly that this is the way to go, I've changed my mind. A number of reasons for this:
- As baldockbabe says, it would probably be preferable to see any surplus put into new races or supporting races at more expensive venues
- By keeping the cost visible to the paddler we are ensuring that the cost is controlled; if the cost is too high then paddlers will revert to using traditional post, if it's acceptable they will use on-line
- It would be more work for the organiser who would need to add the costs to the returns form (a disincentive to use on-line)
- Checking the transactions against entries is potentially harder as it will be less clear what to expect (a paddler entering multiple races at the same event at the same time will potentially be charged marginally less than one entering the same races at different times
- As long as the proposed rule is passed then enhanced fees do not need to be considered so this is probably a red herring
- It seems inherently wrong for us to pay for the transaction fee centrally, but not make an envelope and postage allowance for those using the traditional method
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:10 pm
by Nick Taylor
I've experienced & heard about problems caused by incorrect entries so until all events are able to use an on-line entry system that works it all out for us here are some personal suggestions to simplify entry fees to help competitors & organisers:
Scrap multi class discount. I don't think people need encouraging to enter multiple classes.
Scrap the discount for entering a double event eg Div 1 Double (Sat & Sun) £31, Single (Sat or Sun) £19.25.
I'm not trying to make more or less money so alter all entry fees so that the total fees paid over the whole season is the same. I haven't done the maths but it would look something like this
Prem & Div 1 £16
Div 2 £8
Div 3 £7
Div 4 £4
Scrap late entry fees (I'm not sure about this one but simpler would be better)
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:05 pm
by Dee
Agree with your sentiments but somewhat at a tangent to what I'm trying to achieve
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:21 pm
by djberriman
Nick you stole my thunder. Please put it forward as an ACM motion.
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:40 pm
by Dee
I'm always mystified as to why div 1s are charged the same rate as prem and yet Prem get races at Cardif, Lee Valley etc that are considered too expensive for div 1.
Isn't it time some one put forward a motion to discriminate between the two divisions?
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:50 pm
by John Stoner
Experience at my club (Break Out) would suggest that scrapping the multi-class discount would reduce participation in C1 and C2...
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:00 am
by ruthsy
My kids probably entered C1 and C2 initially as a bit of fun and the multi class discount meant that it wasn't an issue to do so. Now they have a taste for both event's I suspect they will keep them up so it was a good incentive.
Surely if we go to an online entry system calculation of incorrect fees should not be an issue as the computer programme will calculate the correct sum when the classes are added to the basket? I appreciate that the initial writing of the programme would need someone with the a lot more computer expertise
than me - together with the time to put it together.
Re: Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:04 am
by Dee
ruthsy wrote:My kids probably entered C1 and C2 initially as a bit of fun and the multi class discount meant that it wasn't an issue to do so. Now they have a taste for both event's I suspect they will keep them up so it was a good incentive.
Surely if we go to an online entry system calculation of incorrect fees should not be an issue as the computer programme will calculate the correct sum when the classes are added to the basket? I appreciate that the initial writing of the programme would need someone with the a lot more computer expertise
than me - together with the time to put it together.
Yes, I think the last few posts are specifically talking about the current issues without online entry.
The entry system I've currently developed does not yet handle the multi class discount. This is primarily because I started by aiming at div 1s where discount is not applicable. It is surprisingly complicated though, partly because of identifying paddlers, but also because we have to consider scenarios where entries are placed at different times and/or cancelled at different times. The rule is also complex with regard to C2. I'm not saying it's impossible to code but it will take an unreasonable amount of testing for such a small part of the whole, hence leaving it til last.
I'm not saying that it can't or won't be added, just that that there are other system elements with higher priority.