Dave, I hope you don’t mind me moving this onto a new thread from your excellent ‘Our Sport is In a Mess’ as these threads naturally get side-tracked as more issues are raised.
On my previous post on Dave Brads’ thread I suggested that Sport England Increased Participation funding should go into the Canoe England Slalom Committee to help develop the grass roots club structure rather than into GB Canoeing as our sport must be built on as many participating clubs as possible.
This will not now change in this four year Olympic cycle so here is another thought to increase participation and support the development of club training facilities and coaches that is within the control of the sport as a whole and can run alongside the GB Canoeing Initiatives.
I am thinking aloud here so please consider the principles rather than the exact details and figures at this point.
Every time someone enters a race 45% of the entry fee is sent off to the Slalom Executive Committee (SEC). I’m not sure of how SEC’s slalom racing budget is looking at the moment but let’s say for arguments sake it breaks even with monies in for races and SEC’s cost for administrating races. As any accountant will tell you once you are at a break-even point your fixed and variable cost are covered. From then on any extra sales (from extra participation at races) only the variable costs (the cost of extra participation at races) has to now come off the sales income (the 45%). With slalom these variable cost are minimal as the tutti is already there, the timing team is already there, the section judges are already there, they just have slightly longer days as more people are entered. The only extra variable cost that springs to mind is the cost of the extra entry cards! So it’s now happy days in terms of profit.
When we talk of participation I believe John has a magical figure of 9 races per paddler per year that has some statistical significance that I’m sure he won’t need any further prompting to share it with us here.
So until we hear from John let’s use 9 races for now.
OUTLINE PROPOSAL
1. Each club that wants to, at the end of this season registers with SEC the amount of club paddlers that have entered 9 or more races (I’m sure Jim can’t wait to create this form).
2. At the end of the next season the club submits the form again highlighting every extra paddler that has entered 9 or more races against the previous year’s figure. The club then gets a fixed sum per paddler back from SEC with a special Big Bumper Bonus for any paddlers with 9 or more races that are new to slalom (5 if a short season).
3. Then at the end of the following season when the club submits its form it has to show that the money that came back was spent on Slalom Coach Training, Development of Improved/New Training Facilities and/or Slalom Equipment for beginners. This could be part matched funding as the club will be getting more in way of membership fees.
So the clubs can merrily go off and covert plasiphiles into carbophiles, recruit from schools, colleges and friends and family of existing members knowing there will be financial support for their increase in uptake. The clubs can do this at the rate they know is manageable and sustainable for them.
With more paddlers come more parents, partners and friends to help with the volunteering. More juniors will make a larger pool to feed the academies and on up.
The BCU will also increase its income from membership fees so they could put some slalom specific coaches training courses on!
This proposal needs some knocking about on how the figures and auditing will best work I know but if we can get something that most agree is workable it could go to the ACM in autumn. Then if the clubs agree it will be in place for registrations at the end of this year.
If we then run this for the rest of the Olympic cycle I’m sure the sport will be in a better state and when the GB Canoeing guys climb on the podiums in Rio we will be able to demonstrate that any extra participation funding that comes in to the sport is in safe hands at the grass roots through the governing bodies. And if it doesn’t quite go to plan in Rio the sport won’t be decimated if lottery/Sport England funding is reduced/withdrawn.
As only a part of the extra 45% will go back to the clubs the SEC will have more to play with to maybe fund someone within slalom to search out new training facilities as Dave Brads suggested.
Cleaning Up The Mess
-
BaldockBabe
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:55 am
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
From what I have been told (and from the accounts from the last few years ACM) the SCE is just about breaking even hence why there are discussions regarding the funding of Lee Valley (British Open). The timing team and section judges are a variable cost as they are given an allowance towards their travel costs, thus depending on where the venue and where the judge lives the costs will vary. At the moment the timing team (I only know about the timing team) is trying very hard to reduce the numbers of volunteers at each event to keep these costs down, but there is a fine line between keeping costs down and not putting too much pressure on the volunteers.Phil Stevo wrote:
Every time someone enters a race 45% of the entry fee is sent off to the Slalom Executive Committee (SEC). I’m not sure of how SEC’s slalom racing budget is looking at the moment but let’s say for arguments sake it breaks even with monies in for races and SEC’s cost for administrating races. As any accountant will tell you once you are at a break-even point your fixed and variable cost are covered. From then on any extra sales (from extra participation at races) only the variable costs (the cost of extra participation at races) has to now come off the sales income (the 45%). With slalom these variable cost are minimal as the tutti is already there, the timing team is already there, the section judges are already there, they just have slightly longer days as more people are entered. The only extra variable cost that springs to mind is the cost of the extra entry cards! So it’s now happy days in terms of profit.
Thus, if you want to go along the lines you are mentioning the amount of money that goes to SCE from each entry fee will have to increase.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
I think you misunderstand Phil's point about fixed and variable costs of section judges etc. What he is saying is that if the entry at a Div 1 goes up by 10% the cost of section judges does not go up by 10%: they are already there and paid for. (Sorry - but I used to teach accountancy!)
-
Phil Stevo
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
I think I've confused the issue here by the way I've described fixed and variable costs.
The basic principle of my proposal is to motivate clubs through a payback system to increase membership/participation.
The point I'm trying to make is that the profit into SEC will increase dramatically with increased participation at races because of the way these costs operate.
If we take the timing team for instance. The expenses are basically the same for the timing team to be at a race with 100 entries as one with 150 (so they are probably a fixed cost in accounting terms).
If SEC are at break-even with race income and expenditure then each extra race entered is almost pure profit if the number of entries go up but the number of races stay the same.
This increased profit will allow the SEC to pump some of that money back into the clubs that are increasing numbers to be spent on improving the numbers of coaches and improving training facilities and equipment. The SEC will also have more money to put towards the outrageous costs of running the British Open on Lee Valley.
The basic principle of my proposal is to motivate clubs through a payback system to increase membership/participation.
The point I'm trying to make is that the profit into SEC will increase dramatically with increased participation at races because of the way these costs operate.
If we take the timing team for instance. The expenses are basically the same for the timing team to be at a race with 100 entries as one with 150 (so they are probably a fixed cost in accounting terms).
If SEC are at break-even with race income and expenditure then each extra race entered is almost pure profit if the number of entries go up but the number of races stay the same.
This increased profit will allow the SEC to pump some of that money back into the clubs that are increasing numbers to be spent on improving the numbers of coaches and improving training facilities and equipment. The SEC will also have more money to put towards the outrageous costs of running the British Open on Lee Valley.
-
BaldockBabe
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:55 am
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
Ah, that makes more sense. Those please note that many of the P/1 events this year have run to capacity, so have some of the Div 2/3s and Div 4s to not pay levies, so we would have to look at where the extra numbers would be comming from.
Is the intention of your proposal to a) increase the number of clubs, b) increase the size of the existing clubs or c) both?
My concern, as effectively an independent paddler, is that if money is pumped into clubs will that increase the size of particiaption generally or just benefit the few slalom-only clubs like S&S who would be doing this work without the extra money anyway? The amount per paddler in smaller clubs is unlikely to be enough to be of any real value to the smaller clubs. In the meantime those paddlers not affliliated to the said clubs are funding those that are.
Throwing into the mix:
1. Use the regional coaches to provide "open" sessions at various venues within their catchment. People should be asked for a mimimum contribution towards these sessions but they should be open to people at all ages, though I would suggest that they must at the least have basic paddling skills. The intention of these sessions would not be to teach people to paddle but how to do slalom.
2. As stated in one of the other posts, have open camps several times a year. These worked well when C1W were developing, whereby there were camps for C1W of all abilities and ages. Again, I am sure people would be willing to pay a small contribution towards the costs.
M
Is the intention of your proposal to a) increase the number of clubs, b) increase the size of the existing clubs or c) both?
My concern, as effectively an independent paddler, is that if money is pumped into clubs will that increase the size of particiaption generally or just benefit the few slalom-only clubs like S&S who would be doing this work without the extra money anyway? The amount per paddler in smaller clubs is unlikely to be enough to be of any real value to the smaller clubs. In the meantime those paddlers not affliliated to the said clubs are funding those that are.
Throwing into the mix:
1. Use the regional coaches to provide "open" sessions at various venues within their catchment. People should be asked for a mimimum contribution towards these sessions but they should be open to people at all ages, though I would suggest that they must at the least have basic paddling skills. The intention of these sessions would not be to teach people to paddle but how to do slalom.
2. As stated in one of the other posts, have open camps several times a year. These worked well when C1W were developing, whereby there were camps for C1W of all abilities and ages. Again, I am sure people would be willing to pay a small contribution towards the costs.
M
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
All sounds good and needs looking at in more detail, but there appears to also be an assumption that the costs of the slalom committee are confined to those incurred at races - would be a good idea to get the breakdown of all the types of costs as I suspect there are many costs incurred that we don't actually see.
Also as BB has already said many of the races have run to capacity this year
Also
Not quite - variable costs do change with "sales" but the direct marginal costs may decrease per capita - I am an accountant
Also as BB has already said many of the races have run to capacity this year
Also
.As any accountant will tell you once you are at a break-even point your fixed and variable cost are covered
Not quite - variable costs do change with "sales" but the direct marginal costs may decrease per capita - I am an accountant
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
Phil
1) Yes I have statistical evidence about the prospects in Slalom (for both 'stay' and 'improve') for paddlers who race 3 or less races in a season; for paddlers who race 4-8 races in a season; and for paddlers who race 9+ races a season (they are predominantly the only ones who contribute to the sport long-term)
2) Yes I can supply this on a club-by-club basis, and can already do so and have done so back over several years. Duncan's improvements to the database etc will make this far easier and faster this year: all I will have to do is to add in James Hastings' Div 4 figures; in any case the figures have always been ready by the ACM.
BB
Sorry - the issue of independents/small clubs subsidising big clubs is a red herring. The Sport does not need more clubs - or more big clubs - it needs more big clubs whose paddlers predominantly do 9+ races a year. Paddlers need to be in coaching groups of 4-6 roughly compatible paddlers, and the club needs to contain enough of those groups to enable movement between them, otherwise coaching becomes very frustrating both for paddlers and for coaches, and coaches quit. If the club is not providing that it is in the same position as a football club with less than 11 players: members are not getting value for money for their subs, and benefit to the sport is marginal. They would also find it much more difficult to access grant aid for club slalom boats.
The solutions suggested - open training days etc - will simply make the situation worse by enabling clubs to argue that providing coaching for their members is not their job (that already happens to some extent in Yorkshire because of the open training events we run).
Every year some clubs get bigger - because someone decides that they need to (this year's examples: look at Aberdeen or HPPCC compared with last year) and some clubs shrink - either in overall numbers or in the proportion doing 9+ races a year, but eventually in both. Sometimes this happens not just in individual clubs but in whole regions. I predicted three years ago that slalom south of Peterborough was at death's door. Sure enough, in 2012 only 17 juniors from South of Peterborough did 9+ races, and I do not see any sign of that being reversed this year. That is 3.5 BCU Slalom Regions! - or 0.3 of the size of the HPPCC Junior section, whichever way you choose to look at it.
And then there is the Olympic Legacy - but I will be dealing with that on a different thread.
1) Yes I have statistical evidence about the prospects in Slalom (for both 'stay' and 'improve') for paddlers who race 3 or less races in a season; for paddlers who race 4-8 races in a season; and for paddlers who race 9+ races a season (they are predominantly the only ones who contribute to the sport long-term)
2) Yes I can supply this on a club-by-club basis, and can already do so and have done so back over several years. Duncan's improvements to the database etc will make this far easier and faster this year: all I will have to do is to add in James Hastings' Div 4 figures; in any case the figures have always been ready by the ACM.
BB
Sorry - the issue of independents/small clubs subsidising big clubs is a red herring. The Sport does not need more clubs - or more big clubs - it needs more big clubs whose paddlers predominantly do 9+ races a year. Paddlers need to be in coaching groups of 4-6 roughly compatible paddlers, and the club needs to contain enough of those groups to enable movement between them, otherwise coaching becomes very frustrating both for paddlers and for coaches, and coaches quit. If the club is not providing that it is in the same position as a football club with less than 11 players: members are not getting value for money for their subs, and benefit to the sport is marginal. They would also find it much more difficult to access grant aid for club slalom boats.
The solutions suggested - open training days etc - will simply make the situation worse by enabling clubs to argue that providing coaching for their members is not their job (that already happens to some extent in Yorkshire because of the open training events we run).
Every year some clubs get bigger - because someone decides that they need to (this year's examples: look at Aberdeen or HPPCC compared with last year) and some clubs shrink - either in overall numbers or in the proportion doing 9+ races a year, but eventually in both. Sometimes this happens not just in individual clubs but in whole regions. I predicted three years ago that slalom south of Peterborough was at death's door. Sure enough, in 2012 only 17 juniors from South of Peterborough did 9+ races, and I do not see any sign of that being reversed this year. That is 3.5 BCU Slalom Regions! - or 0.3 of the size of the HPPCC Junior section, whichever way you choose to look at it.
And then there is the Olympic Legacy - but I will be dealing with that on a different thread.
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
I agree that as issues get raised they become hard to keep track of the main points and sometimes they grow so much it feels onerous to weigh in. However, if John raises this matter, which I look forward to, I might feel the need to chip inJohn Sturgess wrote:Phil
And then there is the Olympic Legacy - but I will be dealing with that on a different thread.
Happy holidays
-
Phil Stevo
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Re: Cleaning Up The Mess
Sven,
Thanks for the technical description. I knew I was on thin ice trying to describe the relationship between fixed and variable cost and margin in one paragraph and I too used to teach Finance for Non-financial Managers. But hopefully we have conveyed the principle that in slalom every slalom entered after the breakeven point is precious in terms of profit as it then carries less and less cost.
John,
Thanks for the stats - I will leave the proposal at 9 races per year. I do wonder if those that do 9 races are already just in love by the sport and that is why they stay and contribute or by doing 9 you make more/stronger relationship in the sport or just become addicted? It is most probably a mixture.
RUNNING SLALOMS AT CAPACITY
The only two real constraints to capacity on a race day are daylight and water release. At Howsham this year we ran a Div 2, Div3, Short Course Div4, Officials and Open. We still had time to run prize giving then run a topo dou fun event on the full course, change the course (not easy at Howsham due to the span) have more open practice and then run our Yorkshire Olympics and a huge game of rounders as extra-curricula activities for our customer. We would have gladly taken more entries on the day.
Thinking about it, each extra entry adds 2.5 minutes to the slalom day (2 x 60 second run intervals + 30 seconds official practice). I would help is slalom time didn't run 19 minutes later than Greenwich Mean Time!
SEC HIDDEN COSTS
I'm sure there are other cost to the SEC that aren't apparent but a lot of these will be the fixed cost already referred to and the principle remains the same if the SEC are running at breakeven and race entry fees are their main income. I think the do get a yearly grant from BCU as well?
INDEPENDANTS/CLUBS
The main thrust of this proposal, Dave Brad's thread and John's points are that clubs are the lifeblood of our sport and without strong and growing clubs our sport will die. Can I suggest anyone that doesn't have a slalom club in easy reach, just go along to your local plastic club and offer to set up a slalom section. That is what I did at Lower Wharfe some years ago when York Canoe wouldn't allow under 11's to join and my children had taken up slalom. The advantage with this approach is there is already a chair, secretary, treasurer etc. and they will most probably have pool and river sessions already running.
Thanks for the technical description. I knew I was on thin ice trying to describe the relationship between fixed and variable cost and margin in one paragraph and I too used to teach Finance for Non-financial Managers. But hopefully we have conveyed the principle that in slalom every slalom entered after the breakeven point is precious in terms of profit as it then carries less and less cost.
John,
Thanks for the stats - I will leave the proposal at 9 races per year. I do wonder if those that do 9 races are already just in love by the sport and that is why they stay and contribute or by doing 9 you make more/stronger relationship in the sport or just become addicted? It is most probably a mixture.
RUNNING SLALOMS AT CAPACITY
The only two real constraints to capacity on a race day are daylight and water release. At Howsham this year we ran a Div 2, Div3, Short Course Div4, Officials and Open. We still had time to run prize giving then run a topo dou fun event on the full course, change the course (not easy at Howsham due to the span) have more open practice and then run our Yorkshire Olympics and a huge game of rounders as extra-curricula activities for our customer. We would have gladly taken more entries on the day.
Thinking about it, each extra entry adds 2.5 minutes to the slalom day (2 x 60 second run intervals + 30 seconds official practice). I would help is slalom time didn't run 19 minutes later than Greenwich Mean Time!
SEC HIDDEN COSTS
I'm sure there are other cost to the SEC that aren't apparent but a lot of these will be the fixed cost already referred to and the principle remains the same if the SEC are running at breakeven and race entry fees are their main income. I think the do get a yearly grant from BCU as well?
INDEPENDANTS/CLUBS
The main thrust of this proposal, Dave Brad's thread and John's points are that clubs are the lifeblood of our sport and without strong and growing clubs our sport will die. Can I suggest anyone that doesn't have a slalom club in easy reach, just go along to your local plastic club and offer to set up a slalom section. That is what I did at Lower Wharfe some years ago when York Canoe wouldn't allow under 11's to join and my children had taken up slalom. The advantage with this approach is there is already a chair, secretary, treasurer etc. and they will most probably have pool and river sessions already running.