£10 registration fee per event for organisers

[hellymedic]

200 posts about £10!

Either I'm out of touch or cyclists are really the last of the small spenders...

[Somnolent]

£10 ?    Big disincentive  ?     

Way I look at it... (PERSONAL opinion from the POV of someone who might one day be a potential organiser)

I am not particularly well-off but £10 is not a huge sum.... it's more of an incentive to think seriously about need for the event(s) that I propose and to get it properly organised and publicized (which will take 6 - 9 months anyway). 

£50 or £100 would be a disincentive.   Not £10.

That was my understanding too, which I said 8 days ago back on page 1 !!!

In which case apologies for repetition !      !

[MSeries]

No need to apologise PpPete.

[MSeries]

200 posts about £10!

Either I'm out of touch or cyclists are really the last of the small spenders...

Only AUKs it seems. Sportive riders are prepared to pay more money for the higher bar events.

[jogler]

£10 ?    Big disincentive  ?     

Way I look at it... (PERSONAL opinion from the POV of someone who might one day be a potential organiser)

It's not £10 extra because £7(iirc) of that would be expended eventually on(20?) brevet cards which are included in the £10.So it's £3 extra.Not a disincentive to my mind.The fact that it's a pro-forma payment could make it unpopular for those organisers with 2,3,or 4 or more events to be listed on the Calendar.

I've just taken the first steps on my first attempt at organising a ride.If it's not attended to the point of financiancly breaking even it will die a natural death.This will prevent it from becoming an unwanted small event.Audax Darwinism,you might say

[jogler]

200 posts about £10!

Seems to be that a goodly number of those posts are more politically biased than fretting about £10/£3

[Bairn Again]

I suppose I can sort of sympathise with the rationale - explained by Danial - thanks.

I'll typuically not charge less than £5 for any event, which I find discourages time wasters (I will rebate in cash or vouchers to ensure VFM for riders mind you)

So is what the AUK committee proposing that much different from that approach?  Not really. 

Right that is my last post on this subject!

[DanialW]

I suppose I can sort of sympathise with the rationale - explained by Danial - thanks.

Not the rationale, just my POV on the matter. Cheers though!

[Billy Weir]

A thought.  Can the Audax UK rider list facility be amended to allow recording DNS and DNF?

I have just deleted information from my own event that I believe AUK would have found informative (thinking of the comments that AUK finds it difficult to determine how many DNS's and DNF's an event has).

PS: realise this is aimed at the relevant official.  But I don't know who that would be in this case, but suspect the usual suspects will be following this thread.

[DanialW]

Pete Coates is your chap. I think it's a really good idea.

[cyclone]

+1 to Billys suggestion...

[mattc]

Some of the recent posts seem to support the idea that your £10 (or £20 if you go for the recommended 200/100 double) is a deposit that gets you the rights to your local AUK money-making franchise. I find this rather discomfiting ...

[Keeff]

A thought.  Can the Audax UK rider list facility be amended to allow recording DNS and DNF?

I have just deleted information from my own event that I believe AUK would have found informative (thinking of the comments that AUK finds it difficult to determine how many DNS's and DNF's an event has).

PS: realise this is aimed at the relevant official.  But I don't know who that would be in this case, but suspect the usual suspects will be following this thread.

This has got to be the most stupid idea yet.

Don't you realise how many result sheets we already get with DNSs and DNFs left in? And how long they take to sort out, so we get to the list of successful riders.


One client named his event ****s Birthday Bash and sent a list with Gran, Aunt Mabel and Spot the Dog on it for us to sort out.

Please think on.

Keith

[JohnHamilton]

Data on numbers of DNS/DNF would undoubtedly be useful, but only that (i.e. the number of each), not added in to the finish list itself.

[Billy Weir]

Keeff - point taken.  John's variant would mean little or no work for you and meet the idea I had in mind.

It simply struck me as a waste of information deleting the riders from the finish list, I didn't realise it involved that much extra work to sort and filter uploaded excel finish lists (I wasn't imagining the DNS/DNF information be added to the paper version or that the redundant cards would be posted to the validation team).

[phil d]

Keef's point is indeed well made.  It is disappointing (though I suppose not so very surprising) to hear that simple guidance on submitting the finish list cannot be followed.

It may not be practical - I'm just thinking out loud really - but given that Mr U.N.Dulates is collating the requirements for the organisers' section of the new website, and that he thinks recording of the numbers of DNS/DNF would be useful, it might be possible for us organisers to be able to note these two numbers before we finalise the finish list.  Depends on most organisers using the on-line start list to manage their entries and results submission, and I don't know whether this is the case.

[Keeff]

When Orgs have used the startlist generator, filtered out the non-finishers and uploaded the "finishers list", validation is easy and a pleasure.

The 40% who  use other means of providing us with info cause 90% of the work.

 As an example, many orgs have their own databases of riders, some going back many years.  Anyone entering their events is added to the orgs own start list, often using old information regarding AUK membership status.  The resulting finishers list may then look fine, but is a nightmare to validate and record.  One recent event has had 8 separate queries from riders who did the event but whose names didn't appear on the AUK website.

The AUK generator is now totally brilliant.  More often than not, the recording process can be achieved with "one click."

Keith

[simonp]

I find the startlist generator a slight PITA.  I'd like to allocate entry numbers on arrival of entries, but the startlist generator does it in alphabetical order.  Then when I have a few EOLs this means it inserts new entries in the middle so I can't use entry numbers.  I'd like the start list sort order to be under my control, the removal of non-finishers not to re-number entries, and the removal of finishers to be undo-able should I make a mistake.

None of these should preclude it doing the right thing for the validation secretaries, and it might make users less inclined to do it their own way.

[mattc]

I think I now understand how to use the online list thingy. However, on my first big event it was a right pain.

This was because it wasn't clear what the end-point should be. When I got my first entries I added them to a perfectly logical spreadsheet, which also had columns for the different payments (so I could use it in my overall accounts spreadsheet).

Munging this afterwards to a format for the validators was a whole load of extra work. Once you've seen the process end-to-end, it makes more sense, and is a pretty slick system.

[Manotea]

The tricky bit is having to maintain two sets of lists, the online list which contains details of AUK riders, names of non-auks and columns used by the validators and a spreadsheet which also contains details of non-AUKs (addresses, etc.) used to generate labels plus whatever columns you require (contact details, details of ride materials dispatched, etc.).

If all riders registered online for the event, sportive style, this double entry system would mostly go away AND we'd have a built in event marketing resource. Some might not consider the last a good thing!

[Billy Weir]

I haven't used anything but the online tool for the two events I ran since it was introduced.  It gave me pretty much everything I needed.

I do have some thoughts for minor improvements that would have made my life a wee bit easier (e.g. a facility where it does the ride time calculation for you if you enter the finish time and the ability to enter non member addresses).

Suspect I'll email my thoughts to the relevant official once my April event is out of the way.

[JohnHamilton]

I suspect there's as many ways of using it as there are organisers.

Personally I just tend to use it to generate the finish list to go to the validators, and use my own spreadsheets to track entries and print labels; just doing a single batch entry after the event.

As I noted on the website thread, I'm collating requirements for upgrades to the Events Planner, so please send me any suggestions you may have.

[Keeff]

The tricky bit is having to maintain two sets of lists, the online list which contains details of AUK riders, names of non-auks and columns used by the validators and a spreadsheet which also contains details of non-AUKs (addresses, etc.) used to generate labels plus whatever columns you require (contact details, details of ride materials dispatched, etc.).

If all riders registered online for the event, sportive style, this double entry system would mostly go away AND we'd have a built in event marketing resource. Some might not consider the last a good thing!

You obviously haven't looked at it lately.  It now treats members and non-members alike in the same list.  Even remembers names and auk numbers from previous events.  It updates the alphabetical list as you compile the list. It lets you handle medal sales, takes rider times when you're listing BRM events, end even lets me list EOL's in advance so I can do a brevet card label.

I would have bet my mortgage that Simon would not like it though.

If AUK were mine, validations would be 10p for those using it and £1 for the rest.

Keith

[phil d]

I find the startlist generator a slight PITA.  I'd like to allocate entry numbers on arrival of entries, but the startlist generator does it in alphabetical order.  Then when I have a few EOLs this means it inserts new entries in the middle so I can't use entry numbers.  I'd like the start list sort order to be under my control, the removal of non-finishers not to re-number entries, and the removal of finishers to be undo-able should I make a mistake.

None of these should preclude it doing the right thing for the validation secretaries, and it might make users less inclined to do it their own way.

I think I must be missing something here.  If the entries are all in alphabetical order, what do you need an entry number for?

[frankly frankie]

If AUK were mine, validations would be 10p for those using it and £1 for the rest.

</Harry Secombe>

Entry numbers - yes lots of organisers use those (I've never quite understood what it's for either, but there is a space for it on the brevet card) and that would be a worthwhile improvement to the Start List, I'll mention it to Peter.