£10 registration fee per event for organisers

[Billy Weir]

This thread was split off from Arrivée est arrivé! by request.

MV


One of the things that I read for the first time in Arrivee was that the committee has decided to impose a £10 registration fee for each event from 1 November 2011 onwards.

Was this intention communicated in a previous issue of Arrivee?  And if not, does anyone know why not?  As an organiser, I was surprised by this news, which strikes me as indicating the change wasn't communicated well.

Even now, I'm a bit in the dark as to what it means.  John's note under organiser news hints that it includes the first 20 brevet cards, but I'm not sure whether this refers printing (35p a card) or validation (20p a card).  If the former, then why is a £3 surcharge being placed on all events?  Or does this hint that printing costs are going up to 50p a card?

[mattc]

One of the things that I read for the first time in Arrivee was that the committee has decided to impose a £10 registration fee for each event from 1 November 2011 onwards.

Was this intention communicated in a previous issue of Arrivee?  And if not, does anyone know why not?  As an organiser, I was surprised by this news, which strikes me as indicating the change wasn't communicated well.

Ditto.

But Nov 11 is quite a long way off - plenty of time to let orgs know. (and November is a fairly quite time).

(I was thinking about mentioning this in the context of "do we want bigger events and/or less small ones?" - there is probably a thread already discussing this that would be appropriate. )

[phil d]

I wasn't aware of this before either.  It perhaps explains why the 2011 Upper Thames hasn't appeared on the listings yet, though it has been ready for a while.

[DanialW]

Was this intention communicated in a previous issue of Arrivee?  

No

And if not, does anyone know why not?  

Because it was only decided at the last committee meeting. This was the first edition of Arrivee since the decision was made.

[Billy Weir]

And if not, does anyone know why not?  

Because it was only decided at the last committee meeting. This was the first edition of Arrivee since the decision was made.

Fait accompli

A question for any committee member if I may be so bold.  Was consideration given to consulting organisers before making the decision?

[DanialW]

Fait accompli

A question for any committee member if I may be so bold.  Was consideration given to consulting organisers before making the decision?

No - do you think we should have done? Do you think this will be an unpopular decision?

[Billy Weir]

Fait accompli

A question for any committee member if I may be so bold.  Was consideration given to consulting organisers before making the decision?

No - do you think we should have done? Do you think this will be an unpopular decision?

I can only speak for myself.  I think the committee should have but not for a snide reason.  I suspect if you had asked organisers beforehand, you might have found support for a bolder outcome, depending on what issue the committee was trying to address (economy of scale, cancellations, encouraging efforts to get at least 20 riders etc).

I think £10 is a level that is neither here nor there for me.  But then again, I dabble in organising events (unlike others who organise 10 or more rides, and so would have to stump up £100+ in advance, many months before getting any "benefit" from it).

As an aside, can I suggest a quick email to organisers about what this will mean in practice.  As mentioned earlier, I'm a bit confused about the reference to your first 20 cards being included.  From memory, printing costs are 35p each, so if someone orders 20 cards then there would appear to be a £3 surcharge.  Or does this suggest the AGM will be asked to increase this to 50p?  Or that validation will be included?  It was also unclear if this was a "one off" in the sense of once only or once annually.  Possibly me being dim.

[phil d]

Fait accompli

A question for any committee member if I may be so bold.  Was consideration given to consulting organisers before making the decision?

No - do you think we should have done? Do you think this will be an unpopular decision?

My answer to both would be "not really", though organisers with smaller fields than I get on Upper Thames may well feel differently.  But I would be interested to know the rationale for this.  And while I don't think it was necessary to ask organisers in advance, it would have been nice to have been told about it - there are now web-lists used for such notifications.  And I still don't know the procedure to get my event published.

[Martin]

I'm organising my first 200 in a couple of months; an X event with a £3 entry fee (any surplus from which will probably go on bananas and fruit drinks) because it starts in the middle of nowhere (in AUK event terms) and is in the middle of 300tide I'm not expecting a big field; even in PBP year

I just hope I get over 20 entries next year or I'll be even more out of pocket. Can I ask what the rationale behind this fee is? either events are 100% financially the responsibility or the organiser or not

Like Billy I'm not going to sweat it; just wonder what it's all about

[BlackSheep]

Because it was only decided at the last committee meeting. This was the first edition of Arrivee since the decision was made.

AUK does have it's own web-site and forum, was/has anything been posted there? There are enough commitee members active on this forum, so what gives ? At the AGM, it was mentioned that cash within the company (AUK) is at a healthy level. So raising monies isn't an issue, in fact the senior citizens voted not to have free membership subscription, so a loss leader was lost there.

So what are the benefits to the members, or is it just some of them - the water appears to be very muddy on this issue (as has been eluded to).
Are there any tax incentives - my cat is thinking of joining AUK, it'll comfortably keep him in Whiskas.

[MSeries]

I read the registration feel for organisers in the context of some events have fewer than 10 riders and publicity. I assumed the intent is to try to make organisers do more to promote their event to recover their registration fee at least.

[MSeries]

As is whilst I suspect most organisers will not object to the change its presentation has raised more issues then it solves. For example, will there be a similar charge for listing Perms, and if not, why not? Some consultation/discussion at the AGM would have helped resolve these issues first time round.

The cost of Perm cards includes the validation fee and cards may only be bought in sets of 10.

[itinerant]

I'm organising my first 200 in a couple of months; an X event with a £3 entry fee (any surplus from which will probably go on bananas and fruit drinks) because it starts in the middle of nowhere (in AUK event terms) and is in the middle of 300tide I'm not expecting a big field; even in PBP year

I just hope I get over 20 entries next year or I'll be even more out of pocket. Can I ask what the rationale behind this fee is? either events are 100% financially the responsibility or the organiser or not


Zoom - what's your event?  I'll try to arrange my schedule to support your event if I can.

[Ian H]

I read the registration feel for organisers in the context of some events have fewer than 10 riders and publicity. I assumed the intent is to try to make organisers do more to promote their event to recover their registration fee at least.

The November minutes, pre-agm, are on the AUK website.

[mattc]

It could be argued the decision does not support organisers of new events or those in the less populated areas of the country but let's face it the sums involved are trivial and one assumes (tbc please!) not paid upfront as orgs pay fees on validation not on listing.

Isn't there something vague in the Orgs Docs about  AUK covering one's arse if an event bombs financially?

This doesn't sound like it has any dire implications, but I felt the minutes didn't really explain the thinking behind this, so it would be nice to hear the background.
(but as I said, we have 9 months to get used to this, and I presume a couple of commitee meetings in that time).

[BlackSheep]

So the change effectively moves Calendar events more in line with Perms. I didn't know appreciate the minimum card order thing for perm's, though it makes perfect sense in hindsight. A 'Big Up' to Perm Orgs, especially those who have a stable of routes listed.

Kind of yes - then most deffinately kind of no.

All the perms cards I've been issued with by organisers have been organiser's generic cards.

So it's not a problem for perms orgs to stockpile cards - in fact it makes sense.

[Billy Weir]

one assumes (tbc please!) not paid upfront as orgs pay fees on validation not on listing.

You have to pay this charge to register your event in the calendar (i.e. have it published).  So, upfront.  el Supremo and the Blacksheeps are going to have to speak to their bank managers

[frankly frankie]

I like the move to a 'Calendaring fee' - though I think the apparent £3 price hike needs to be explained or rethought - maybe make it first 25 cards free. 
I would imagine the 'economies of scale' mentioned earlier, as applied to the Brevet Card production process, would explain it even if nothing else.  And there used to be a minimum order of 20 on event cards anyway, but Pam never enforced it (probably because she found that Orgs simply wouldn't pay up).

Because it was only decided at the last committee meeting. This was the first edition of Arrivee since the decision was made.

AUK does have it's own web-site and forum, was/has anything been posted there? There are enough commitee members active on this forum, so what gives ?

Seems to me that Arrivee, or the Handbook, or the AGM, is the correct place to announce something like this - and not the online community which would still (yes even in C21) lay AUK open to accusations of unequal access.

[phil d]

Seems to me that Arrivee, or the Handbook, or the AGM, is the correct place to announce something like this - and not the online community which would still (yes even in C21) lay AUK open to accusations of unequal access.

I agree, but communication to the organisers would seem like a basic courtesy - there is a channel for this.  My event on the first Saturday of November is the first affected, but I've heard zilch.  But had been wondering why my event is not yet published.

[BlackSheep]

You have to pay this charge to register your event in the calendar (i.e. have it published).  So, upfront.  el Supremo and the Blacksheeps are going to have to speak to their bank managers

Possibly, or I use the difference between the entry fee and the event cost to pay for it.

I must brush-up on my welcoming greeting at the end of today's audax, prob goes long lines of :- Sorry chaps, the £2 you're got off your bill at the final control today, and the all-day free parking might be your last.

Does anyone know where the events co-ordinator is today? It'll be good to have a talk with him, he's probably out riding his tandem

Life's strange isn't it, I've always thought it would be a good idea to make healthy pastimes easy, affordable to all. That one seems to be going-down in flames quite nicely. And even more so, I changed my signiture from an adapted line from Appocalypse Now - to one from Contact.

[αdαmsκι]

I'm organising my first 200 in a couple of months; an X event with a £3 entry fee (any surplus from which will probably go on bananas and fruit drinks) because it starts in the middle of nowhere (in AUK event terms) and is in the middle of 300tide I'm not expecting a big field; even in PBP year

I just hope I get over 20 entries next year or I'll be even more out of pocket. Can I ask what the rationale behind this fee is? either events are 100% financially the responsibility or the organiser or not

Zoom - what's your event?  I'll try to arrange my schedule to support your event if I can.

It's the Double Dutch. Details are on the yacf thread & the AUK calendar.

[Bairn Again]

Id be interested in knowing what the change is seeking to achieve.  It appears to be an attempt to whittle out events which have only a tiny number of entrants, which is fine I suppose if theres a minimum amount of effort involved in setting up an event.  Howeever it makes organisng any event that has less than 20 entrants instantly more expensive - right? 

One casualty of this change could be the short event thats tagged onto a longer one ie same day, same start location. 

[mikewigley]

> It appears to be an attempt to whittle out events which have only a tiny number of entrants

(At the danger of diverting this topic beyond the  subject line) ....

I think that this is indeed the intention.  To be fair to John Hamilton, this is something the committee discussed at the meeting before he became Events Secretary, so he's only the messenger.  I do agree that the message in Arrivee seems to have raised more questions than answers, but I think it's intended as an early warning of intent and more details are to follow.

It's not my area of responsibility on Committee but I'll try to give you some response to a topic that I had expected would stir up some interest - and I've not been disappointed.

I think the intention is to draw attention to the amount of work disproportionally created by putting on small-interest events.  This will include: scrutinising the event for inclusion on the Calendar, production and mailing of brevet cards, and chasing up organisers for the results.

However, somewhing I wasn't aware of when we discussed this is just how many events we have with low numbers (with Arrivee seemingly defining low numbers as "below 20").  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.  I actually like riding these smaller events with their imtimate atmosphere.

On the other hand, we have in recent years encouraged the growth of one-person events through Perms, and particularly DIY Perms, so there's definitely a move to more, smaller event.

I fear that this move might stiffle the development of new events and new Organisers, and restrict those who put on several events on the same day - even though Don Black gets about 30 riders, these are spread over 3 events, so Don is going to have to think twice about paying £30 up-front to register his events, and he'll be wondering what to do with his unused brevet cards.

It's also going to be a bigger problem in the Audaxing deserts of Mid Wales and the more extreme parts of Scotland.

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).

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

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

 - 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 ... ?

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

 - If you were to lose these smaller events, are you likely to ride bigger events elsewhere, or

 - would you just ride more Perms?

 - 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)



So, more questions than answers.  I'm just the Membership Secretary, and possibly speaking out of turn, but I can see that without events I might have trouble hanging on to the members (is it possible that might be taken that the wrong way), so I'm keen to explore this further.

[Hot Flatus]

Can't quite see how a push for more cyclists to take up Audax squares with a deliberate move to reduce the number of events available to riders. Factor into this the increasing cost of transport to and from events, if there are no local ones left. Surely a look at revising the way the more stressed areas of AUK admin operate, with the possible request for more volunteers to spread the workload would be preferable to cutting rides.

[mmmmartin]

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?  

Maybe Group Perms are a way forward - in fact there may be a group riding of the Midhurst 1,000k Perm next year so this is a topic I'm interested in.
I can see where the committee is coming from, but a big event a long way off is no substitute for a small event that is local. At the risk of putting the cat among the pigeons, could you not simply increase the charge for validation of Brevets so that these small events are subsidised by the larger ones? The cost of transport to/from events is what matters now, not a few pence on the entry fee. For what it's worth, I would rather see these smaller events encouraged, not discouraged. And I speak as someone who is recovering from a hilly, windy, wet 100k in early February that attracted 36 entries and 30 starters.
Or how about reducing the cost of brevet cards by - for small events - making them on normal paper instead of the posh pretty colour-inked cards we now get. I admit this would not lessen by one jot the work that goes into an event - which is what the initiative is trying to do - but it would cut the cost.