£10 registration fee per event for organisers

[MSeries]

martinbrice sums up things nicely for me. Cost of travelling, that is time and expense, is probably the most significant factor in deciding whether I do a certain event or not. One of the best events I did in 2010 was The Lanchester 400. Four entrants, all finished, 4 points and 6.75AAA points for each of us, not an easy ride, BUT a superb route, hilly in daylight, flat and easy navigation in the night. Midday start, ridable from a mainline station, no overnight accommodation required. This event should be developed and grown, not canned because it's not popular. The Lanchester 400 was in it's first year in 2010 so I think that's one reason it attracted such a small field, another though I think is because it's too hilly for some riders.

Perhaps some of the other small events would be larger if their start times and locations made them easier for more people to get to.  X rated events starting in car parks at 0600 or any event starting at 0800 on a Sunday are unlikely to attract me unless they are close to home.

The cost of listing an event will either cause the organiser of a small event to make changes to attract more riders to recover more of his outlay or it'll cause him to can the event as not being worth it. The latter will be a shame and simply mean fewer events get ridden IMO. Perhaps, like martinbrice says, larger events can be used to subsidise the samller ones, this then would require a central admin rather than org by org one, UNLESS the same org is able to balance his books by also offering a popular event.

To answer some of MemSecs questions.

No, I don't think AUK Committee (AUK-C) is right in trying to outlaw small events , though I don't think that's their intention here. I don't think this is the way to encourage organisers to grown their events, I think it'll lead to small events being canned. What is the best way ? IMO, have fewer clashes on the calendar. Take May 7th 2011, there are four events that I would like to do, all reasonably local or doable with the kind assistence from friends. We should seek to adjust the process. I have ideas. We should encourage development of events in 'audax deserts' even if this is at the expense of larger events. I am unlikely to travel further to ride larger events if the local smaller events ceased to exist. I'd probably just ride fewer audaxes. We should have some sort of semi official group perms though what would make them different to a car park start X rated calendar event I don't know.

Smaller events would be larger if they started at times and places that more people could actually get to easily and by this I mean those people who do not have personal motor transport or provide free or very low cost sleeping beforehand and are rideable from a station that has a decent service.

[frankly frankie]

Something like a sixth of all events would be penalised by this ruling, which is something I'm not at all comfortable with - and I doubt that my 400 and 600 would be on the Calendar under such a ruling. 

But (supposing this measure had been introduced 12 months earlier) all you have to do is raise your entry fees.  10 entrants paying £6 instead of £5 would pay for this upfront fee.  If people think small local events are so wonderful then presumably they will pay the extra £ rather than travel - and it's still a fleabite compared with the other costs of spending a long day out on your bike.

It's the deeply-ingrained 'subsistence-level' culture within AUK (especially the Organisers) which causes all these problems - allow yourself a bit more headroom, and really an extra £3 outlay is not even worth pushing the "Oi!!" button to complain.

For next year, everyone now has prior warning (via Arrivee) before the events have been calendared, so they can adjust their entry fees if they see fit.

[Hot Flatus]

Putting up the entrance fees ( with which I have absolutely no problem) still does not seem to address the issue which, according to MemSec, has brought this decision about.

[PloddinPedro]

This is something I want to discuss further with Committee at our next meeting later in the month, so your feedback on YACF is very timely and very welcome (by me at least).

I wonder if this issue merits a separate topic heading, perhaps to attract more responses?

[frankly frankie]

OK, but the 'subsistence' ethos is strong within committee too (except when it comes to committee meetings but I won't climb on that particular hobby horse just now) - and certain obvious financial tweaks (such as raising validation fees by 10p shock horror) are really difficult to implement because of timing issues surrounding the AGM and the future Calendar (** example below).

So you have a group of people who start out as willing volunteers and activists, and really, really, want to stay that way, no question about that - but bogged down in a bureaucratic mush none of which is remotely self-financing, it's easy to lose heart.  And enlisting more and more willing helpers to spread the load doesn't seem to help, it just multiplies the bureaucracy instead. (There's probably a name for this syndrome).  
IMO, AUK needs to free itself from this need to count every penny and attend to every microscopic detail.  If there's a set of events out there which are known to attract very small entries, well instead of:
"How many brevet cards do you need?"
"Er, not sure, I'll let you know in a day or 2"
"Six"
"No, Seven"
"Seven cards printed and in the post"
"Its gone up to 10 now".

It's just:
20 cards, print, bosh, in the post.

That has to be better, surely?


** getting a price rise through -
Suppose at the end of last year 2010, after their annual meeting, ACP announced an increase in their validation fee - say from 1 euro to 1.50, in time for PBP qualifying year.  (It's happened before)
What can AUK do?  AUK's validation fees (including the element that is passed on to ACP) are ratified at each AGM - the next AGM isn't until November 2011, by which time the majority of the Calendar for 2012 is already in place.  Organisers won't want to raise entry fees that they've already set and published - so the date for the increase is deferred by a year, to Nov 2012, to allow for this.
So there's a 2-year lag before AUK can recover the extra costs, that would amount to an expenditure of around 1000 euro per year.   Now that isn't really very much in the big scheme of things, except when the default position is one of counting every penny,

[edit] +1 for a new topic 

[daimountaingoat]

With regards to there being a registration fee to be introduced in Novenber 2011 i personally thinks its ok for people who organise events that attract over 20 entrants but it tends to penalise the event organisers who only attract less than 20 or some even less than 10. I am an organiser of an event run in south wales and the general census is that the events over here in Wales seem to attract less riders than over in England. I have done all i can by trying to attract more entrants like keeping entry fees low and changing days from sundays to saturdays etc. Surely introducing this registration fee is going to end up with less events on the auk calender. I for one am annoyed that AUK is penalising the smaller events. 

[phil d]

Speaking as an organiser of a popular, well -attended event (I get over 100 entries most years), I would be supportive of some form of scheme that could use the financial flexibility events like mine have to assist those at the other end of the scale.  I'm not sure how best to do it but the current proposal seems highly regressive - it's insignificant to me, but clearly would have a big effect on the events Mr Nesbitt and daimountaingoat refer to above.

And I am also of the view that small events should not be discouraged.

Francis's comments explain clearly why small events are a problem for Pam producing the cards.  Is any other element of the process so affected by small numbers?  Validation and recording probably don't experience a similar effect, as they have fixed post-event numbers.

Perhaps an answer would be to increase the cost of the cards, but to make Pam's job less complicated issue a minimum quantity of 20 (or whatever number makes good sense).  Small events (less than 20, if that's the minimum set) pay a card fee per finisher, with those who request more than 20 paying for the number ordered as at present.  But it's still not ideal.  Nowhere near.

[Martin]

Speaking as an organiser of a popular, well -attended event (I get over 100 entries most years), I would be supportive of some form of scheme that could use the financial flexibility events like mine have to assist those at the other end of the scale.

does the existing validation system not do that anyway? you pay 20p per rider validation (£20 say) a 4 rider event pays 80p (and I suspect that the 35p card printing fee also incorporates a fee that goes to AUK; even if it does it's ridiculously cheap for such a good service)

AUK's cost to provide the validation / web hosting etc for both events is probably almost identical; you the organiser have done the extra sterling work associated with a bigger field. Unless there are other costs to AUK with running a bigger event that I've overlooked...

[JohnHamilton]

So you have a group of people who start out as willing volunteers and activists, and really, really, want to stay that way, no question about that - but bogged down in a bureaucratic mush none of which is remotely self-financing, it's easy to lose heart.  And enlisting more and more willing helpers to spread the load doesn't seem to help, it just multiplies the bureaucracy instead. (There's probably a name for this syndrome).  

Administratium

Investigators at a major research institution have discovered the heaviest element known to science. This startling new discovery has been tentatively named Administratium (chemical element [Ad]).

This new element has no protons or electrons, thus having an atomic number of 0. It does, however, have 1 neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years; it does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places.

In fact, an Administratium sample's mass will actually increase over time, since with each reorganization some of the morons inevitably become neutrons, forming new isotopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Administratium is spontaneously formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as the "Critical Morass." You will know it when you see it.

[mattc]

It is probably a fear of the toxic Administratium that creates clubs/societies where 5% of the members do 90% of the work.

[frankly frankie]

Back Off, Paris!

Yeah that was just plucking a 'f'rinstance' out of the air - not really intending to get at ACP at all!  
To be honest, if ACP just did away with the whole validation fee thing, as a way of financing their operation (ie PBP), and just came across with an appeal to AUK and other similar organisations, for a 'donation' to help finance PBP - they'd probably be offered a lot more than they currently get!

Thankyou UNDulates - we live and learn.
I suppose I was thinking of Parkinson's Law really.

[Billy Weir]

As I don't know why the committee made the decision, I can't say whether it is reasonable or not.

I have no fundamental objection to a minimum brevet card order and can see some sense in it on adminstrative grounds.  Although I would have preferred this to be done at the point when the cards are ordered rather than at the point of registration.

If it reflects a policy about desirable size of events, then I am much less comfortable as it seems to be borne of prejudice.  Did the decision makers, for example, look beyond the statistics to the motivation of organisers who put on small events?  Personally I draw a distinction between small events because of location or distance or time of year, as opposed to those where the organiser wants him and his chums to be the only riders (or her and her chums, of course!).

I guess what I'm saying is that the registration fee may be too blunt a tool.  It might have been better for the event co-ordinators to be given freedom to exercise judgement about whether to publish an event - there is nothing that says every event submitted for publication has to be.  This might be facilitated by requiring the organiser to fill in a summary of how many entrants they are planning for and the reason for putting on the event.

[JohnHamilton]

With my Events Sec hat on. Excuse me if I don't cover everything that's been said on (and off) the topic whilst I've been off riding my bike.

I'll leave the question of whether appropriate constitutional process has been followed to those who know far more than I do about how AUK is run. Although there seems to be enough self professed experts on that subject here.

The decision was made by the Board at the last Board meeting immediately before the AGM. I was present as an observer (but not an elected official). Although I would have supported the idea.

AIUI, there is not some sort of crusade against small events. But it is important to recognise that there is an amount of work involved for AUK in calendaring any event, regardless of size. This work may be measured primarily in volunteer time rather than cold hard cash but it's still there. So an event with a very small number of finishers represents proportionally more effort in relation to the money received for it in terms of brevet card & validation fees.

The merits of payment in arrears vs in advance was considered, and "in advance" decided upon as it would have the effect of making organisers think before putting their event on the calendar. This certainly isn't an option that makes the lives of the Events Team easier as once I'd been elected at the AGM of course I got stuck with the job of implementing that decision.

The timing of the deadlines for the publication of Arrivee didn't really allow me to say anything more than the simple notification of the decision as at the time the Events Team was still working out how to implement it. That did have the unavoidable consequence that organisers such as phild who already had their post Nov-11 events ready would be slightly delayed in their publication (gold star to phil though - I think yours was about the only event in that position).

Practical details - these will be emailed to organisers in the next newsletter, and the new process will be trialled before the next Arrivee deadline with orgs of Nov-Feb events. The intention is that the Event Planner will be updated to include the necessary form, and online payment options (once Pete has finished the new website).

Looking at the event numbers, it may be that the bar hasn't been set in the best place. I've analysed last years results and just over 40% of events have less than 20 finishers (obviously we know nothing about number of entries). Personally I find that a very depressing statistic.

[mattc]

I've analysed last years results and just over 40% of events have less than 20 finishers (obviously we know nothing about number of entries). Personally I find that a very depressing statistic.

It would be interesting to know the stats for the number of cards purchased - clearly this isn't the same as entries, but it should give some idea.

(I sort-of-feel that if half my field DNSes - and a couple DNF -  that isn't necessarily an unsuccesful event. I had something similar June-before-last when it rained for about 10 hours of the night before.)

[Martin]

while on the subject of Brevet cards; what is the official line on re-using them? I recycle unused ones the next year by sticking new innards for the next event; I bin any DNF / incomplete ones (which I get many of; a lot of riders are just having a day out and don't particularly want it validated although I do try to encourage them to do so as it's more riders in the results and pennies for AUK). But everyone ends up with a paid for official AUK card.

[vorsprung]

I only do one event, a 400

Due to the place it starts, the parking is limited.  Also it is a 400 so the "interest" is limited.  I have capped the entries to 40-ish.  Last time there were approx 35 entries and 23 finishers
I would run the event if there were 10 or more entries

Having a change to the arrangements for an upfront fee would not alter my views on running the event

[BlackSheep]

while on the subject of Brevet cards; what is the official line on re-using them? I recycle unused ones the next year by sticking new innards for the next event; I bin any DNF / incomplete ones (which I get many of; a lot of riders are just having a day out and don't particularly want it validated although I do try to encourage them to do so as it's more riders in the results and pennies for AUK). But everyone ends up with a paid for official AUK card.

Good point Zoom, like you I bin the DNFs and incompletes.

I was encouraged by an AUK comittee member to re-cycle any DNSs by sticking-in a photo-copy of a suitable event.AUK have already been paid for the card, and in effect would be getting an extra validation.

I always get late entries, and if I've not enough cards, this is what the last of the late ones usually get.

[JohnHamilton]

I've analysed last years results and just over 40% of events have less than 20 finishers (obviously we know nothing about number of entries). Personally I find that a very depressing statistic.

It would be interesting to know the stats for the number of cards purchased - clearly this isn't the same as entries, but it should give some idea.

(I sort-of-feel that if half my field DNSes - and a couple DNF -  that isn't necessarily an unsuccesful event. I had something similar June-before-last when it rained for about 10 hours of the night before.)

True. In my experience over the years I average 10% for DNS/DNF, with the occasional event with a significantly higher incidence. Adjusting the figures by that amount doesn't make any significant difference. It's still around 40% with 20 or less.

[JohnHamilton]

I guess what I'm saying is that the registration fee may be too blunt a tool.  It might have been better for the event co-ordinators to be given freedom to exercise judgement about whether to publish an event - there is nothing that says every event submitted for publication has to be.  This might be facilitated by requiring the organiser to fill in a summary of how many entrants they are planning for and the reason for putting on the event.

Far too subjective, and would give rise to endless arguments.

[JohnHamilton]

while on the subject of Brevet cards; what is the official line on re-using them? I recycle unused ones the next year by sticking new innards for the next event; I bin any DNF / incomplete ones (which I get many of; a lot of riders are just having a day out and don't particularly want it validated although I do try to encourage them to do so as it's more riders in the results and pennies for AUK). But everyone ends up with a paid for official AUK card.

Good point Zoom, like you I bin the DNFs and incompletes.

I was encouraged by an AUK comittee member to re-cycle any DNSs by sticking-in a photo-copy of a suitable event.AUK have already been paid for the card, and in effect would be getting an extra validation.

I always get late entries, and if I've not enough cards, this is what the last of the late ones usually get.

I think that's a fair enough approach, and quite common (I do it myself if I need more for EOLs). As you say, you paid for the card originally and you pay for the validation when it's used. So you're not depriving AUK of anything by doing that.

[Bairn Again]

In response to the points that MemSec has raised, my tuppenceworth is -

Is AUK committee correct in trying to outlaw the small events?

No.  If theres time being wasted supervising organisers then the Committee should seek to whittle out badly run events (repeated last minute card orders, late submission of results, that sort of thing) not small events. 

 - is this the best way to encourage Organisers to grow their events?  If not, what is?

It’s a blunt object and would probably achieve its objective of fewer very small events.  I'd challenge the underlying assumption that small events are by definition a problem though.  For example, what about an impeccably organized event that attracts all 5 AUK members that live in a 30 mile radius for the one Audax that they all ride each year?  This event is no hassle to AUK and can’t be grown.  I can’t see justification for making the running of this event more expensive per head than a larger one.  That’s of course just an example, but my last calendar ride (the UK’s first PBP qualifier of 2011 on 3rd January) had just 8 riders.  Sure I would have paid more, but IMHO that’s not justification for the proposed change.       

 - Should our team of volunteers who support the calendar events just get on with it, or should we seek to adjust our processes to cope with events as they really are, rather than as we might wish them to be?  What if this means we need more volunteers ... ?

I'd say “get on with it” and “do you need a help?” 

 - Should we encourage the development of Audax in certain areas, possibly at the expense of larger events elsewhere?

No.  Events will happen if somebody can be bothered organizing, otherwise they wont.  An excellent framework is already in place.  AUK currently does enough and shouldn’t be beating itself up on this.     
   
 - If you were to lose these smaller events, are you likely to ride bigger events elsewhere, or would you just ride more Perms?

I wouldn’t ride bigger events elsewhere, would probably do more perms, but they require a lot more motivation and unless one makes an effort to organize a Group perm there’s less likelihood of meeting your mates. 
 
-   should we have some "official" way of organising Group Perms so that you can be notified and invited to join in with others on a Perm, as a replacement to these small Calendar events?  (Remember, not everyone is on YACF)

No.  Group Perms will happen by e-mail, phone, YACF, Facebook, Twitter, down the pub etc etc.  An “official” way will need an organiser to volunteer. 

Oh and BTW, one man’s “subsistence culture” is another’s “not ripping off your cycling mates”.   I charged £6 for a 200k yesterday and used the bigger than expected field to fund an extra manned intermediate control.   

I would far rather be on the margins financially than blithely charge more just 'cos I can.  Of course, it's maybe a subject closer to Scottish hearts than most.

[BlackSheep]

The Bryan Chapman Scenic will probably not happen in 2012,

And although (at the AGM) there was a plea from AUK for organisers to run mor 300s. The same goes for my 300 in July 2012 - Mr Pickwick's tour of the Cotswolds.

There's usually about 15 to 20 finishers for each event - not enough to justify the initial registration.

Margins on the weekend's activiities aren't that great, and every BlackSheep event has to pay it's own way.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

So an extra pound on the entry fee is that big a deal for lots of people? It isn't to me.

[BlackSheep]

So an extra pound on the entry fee is that big a deal for lots of people? It isn't to me.

For some people maybe not Dave, but for some yes. I know that some of the cyclists that turn up to ride my events don't use their bike from home for the fun of it.

I've been in that situation in the past, and it's not very nice - so please spare a thought for them.

Truth be known, virtually none of us spends more than we can possibly get away with when we're on an event. I don't want to quote instances - but if you wish ...............

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Given the cost of getting receipts around most x-rated events, I think you are overstating the difference an extra pound on the entry would make but you can believe what you like. I don't know anybody who picks which Audax they ride on a particular day by lowest entry fee but there are quite a few riders that select the nicer route or nearest start.