Another possible rule change proposal for ACM - Fees

[Dee]

Shepperton are intending to put forwards the following for the ACM, but thought we'd follow in CPs footsteps and post here for comments first. All advice on explanation, wording and content welcomed

Background

For many years everyone has been keen to see online entry systems introduced, but such systems cost money. Even with volunteers developing the systems in their “spare” time, there are still transaction costs charged by the companies that process the credit/debit cards and there are also hosting costs to consider.

Shepperton has successfully trialled a system this year, but was required to request enhanced fees in order to charge a small transaction fee. If, as we hope, the system is rolled out more widely for 2017 and beyond, it does not make sense for all competitions to have to individually apply.

The following examples apply specifically to the system developed and used for Shepperton, but we believe that similar figures would apply to any system and the proposed rule is therefore more generic.

This year the system used by Shepperton charged 2.2% + 20p per transaction. (Our card processor has a similar pricing structure, hence the 20p base line)

• For a double div 1 this works out at 89p or 2.9% of the entry fee.
• At the other extreme a single div 3 entry would incur a charge of 38p or 4.8%
• Div 4s are not covered by the system but if they were a single div 4 entry would incur 31p or 6.2%

However, with the above we have not covered costs and may need to increase this to, say, 2.6% + 20p (this may depend on how many competitions use the system). This would result in:

• Double div 1 – £1.01 or 3.3%
• Single div 3 – 41p or 5.1%
• Single div 4 – 33p or 6.7%

Regarding cancellations, Shepperton did, this year, return all transaction fees when refunds were given, but depending on the supplier of the payment service this might not always be possible.
(Note that the system used by Shepperton will only be available to other clubs if transaction fees can be charged)

Suggested New Rule

UK C11.6.5
A competition that provides for paddlers to enter and pay on-line, may charge an additional transaction fee for on-line entries, without applying for an enhanced fee. This fee must be clearly distinguished as an online transaction charge at the time of payment and cannot be levied against entries received via other means. Where a refund is given (whatsoever the reason) there is no requirement for the transaction fees to be returned. Alternative valid methods of entry must be accepted and given equal treatment.




Edits:
Added in "Alternative valid methods of entry must be accepted and given equal treatment" following comments from djberrimen.
Removed specific limits following general discussion:

• For division 3 and above up to 6% of the standard fee (or agreed enhanced fee where appropriate) can be charged
• For division 4 up to 7% can be charged

[djberriman]

Looks a good idea but lets not be prescriptive.

I'd suggest:-

UK C11.6.5
A competition that provides for paddlers to enter and pay on-line, may charge an additional transaction fee for on-line entries, without applying for an enhanced fee. This fee must be clearly distinguished as an online transaction charge at the time of payment and cannot be levied against entries received via other means or for any reason than to cover the cost of the transaction. Where a refund is given (whatsoever the reason) there is no requirement for the transaction fees to be returned. Alternative methods of entry must be accepted and given equal treatment.

[Dee]

Looks a good idea but lets not be prescriptive.

I'd suggest:-

UK C11.6.5
A competition that provides for paddlers to enter and pay on-line, may charge an additional transaction fee for on-line entries, without applying for an enhanced fee. This fee must be clearly distinguished as an online transaction charge at the time of payment and cannot be levied against entries received via other means or for any reason than to cover the cost of the transaction. Where a refund is given (whatsoever the reason) there is no requirement for the transaction fees to be returned. Alternative methods of entry must be accepted and given equal treatment.

I put the percentages in, as I thought some people would want to see a limitation, but would be happy to leave out if this was a consensus.

" for any reason than to cover the cost of the transaction" - the only thing with this is that we are trying to cover transaction, hosting and a few other bits so even this year's charges could fall foul, depending on how you define "cost of the transaction".

"Alternative methods of entry must be accepted and given equal treatment." - yes good point, will add in.

[jke]

My view is that online transactions is a good thing but that separating out online with your percentage charges and traditional (alternative methods of payment) is complicating matters too much. Move forward a year or two and it would be good to think that all (or most) organisers are using your/an online system and that most competitors pay using it.

My club has a card reader where transactions cost us around 1% on average plus a monthly fee of £30. We introduced the card reader as a trial, and although it costs us, we have decided to keep it as club members find it so much more convenient than paying by cash or cheque. We discussed the percentage overhead and the monthly fee and decided the club could stand it. If necessary by upping the membership fees accordingly. We also do electronic banking (payments and receipts) where there is no charge.

I suggest that slalom entry fees are just upped by £1 or 50p (using your figures) across the board or across a division to cover online systems. I hesitate with div 4 though because my experience of div 4 is that most enter on the day (by cash) so maybe div 4 charges not increased.

Lastly I’m not suggesting we go to online only – one of my entries (traditionally) still sends the two SAEs.

[Dee]

My view is that online transactions is a good thing but that separating out online with your percentage charges and traditional (alternative methods of payment) is complicating matters too much. Move forward a year or two and it would be good to think that all (or most) organisers are using your/an online system and that most competitors pay using it.

My club has a card reader where transactions cost us around 1% on average plus a monthly fee of £30. We introduced the card reader as a trial, and although it costs us, we have decided to keep it as club members find it so much more convenient than paying by cash or cheque. We discussed the percentage overhead and the monthly fee and decided the club could stand it. If necessary by upping the membership fees accordingly. We also do electronic banking (payments and receipts) where there is no charge.

I suggest that slalom entry fees are just upped by £1 or 50p (using your figures) across the board or across a division to cover online systems. I hesitate with div 4 though because my experience of div 4 is that most enter on the day (by cash) so maybe div 4 charges not increased.

Lastly I’m not suggesting we go to online only – one of my entries (traditionally) still sends the two SAEs.

I'm slightly confused by this?

Sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of a card reader here, can you elaborate on how that is associated with online entries please?

I think you are saying just up the fees across the board, but I don't believe it is that simple. The online system we are using works by taking the transaction fee before the entry fee is passed to the club. The club will expect to see the whole fee, it we just up the entry fee then either you are asking us as system maintainers to foot the transaction fee (which is not going to happen), or we have to do some sort of reverse calculation and agree with each club how much we are going to give them and how much will be transaction fee. This can be done but is not as straight forward as it sounds and I think clubs may just decide to continue to stick with postal only so that the income is as high as possible.

Am I misunderstanding you?

I agree that div 4s will largely enter and pay on the day, and experience so far suggests div 3s won't bother much with online either (though we have a few weeks to go yet and there may be a rush to avoid late fees). So we are really looking at div 2s and above, to start with at least.

[boatmum]

A slightly different approach

I think the online entry fee system is the way to go. Given the Shepperton system has been successful this year - would it not be better for the slalom committee to adopt the system itself and roll it out to all clubs? Payment for the system can then be taken in the same way judges and timing fees are paid - amounts to be agreed. That way clubs who may not be as tech confident as say Shepperton can rely on a central system without having to reinvent the wheel (as Dee suggests) .

Entry fees can then be increased to reflect the additional costs to clubs.

Those who prefer to pay by cheque will no doubt say they dont feel this is fair as they are not using the system but the time and admin involved in taking paper cheques to the bank has a cost too its just that previously this hasn't been costed out in the entry fees.

The advantage here might be that if the entry fees are paid centrally - the necessary costs can be dealt with centrally and the club is reimbursed a net figure after levies, judges and timing team fees and electronic fees etc

Does anyone feel that has legs? I believe Skiing / cycling operates a central fee entry system which works quite well

[jke]

Sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of a card reader here, can you elaborate on how that is associated with online entries please?

The card reader was supposed to show that as a club we tried to keep it simple and not distinguish between card payers (who cost us) and cash/cheque (who don’t). You could argue that the cash payers lose out but there are a whole lot of winners and losers in a club for example those who need to use club equipment and those who don’t. But the overriding factor is in supporting the club. Or in this case a simple online entry fee system.

I think you are saying just up the fees across the board, but I don't believe it is that simple.

My thinking was that the overheads would be set the same value or percentage across the board. Or across the division. An agreed value or percentage would be set so that the club would know what proportion they would receive. To me your op figures looked as though they might end up different for each event. What I was trying to say was keep it simple.

I assume the report from the payment system would not be broken down by club or event. And therefore not distributable.

[djberriman]

The advantage here might be that if the entry fees are paid centrally - the necessary costs can be dealt with centrally and the club is reimbursed a net figure after levies, judges and timing team fees and electronic fees etc

I see no advantage in this, the clubs who have organised and run the event will be out of pocket financially (to the tune of hundreds of pounds) until they receive the payment from the slalom committee.

Cash and cheque are often done on the day (at pretty much every level) so I can't see any event going cashless any time soon.

[Dee]

Can I just clarify that the proposal is not just with the Shepperton system in mind (though I do have a vested interest in that system ); any system taking on line payments via credit/debit cards will have a cost!
Also this proposal is not about designing how a system does/should/will work; it is purely about making any such system viable.


Having said that the following responses are for the "Shepperton" system.

I think the online entry fee system is the way to go. Given the Shepperton system has been successful this year - would it not be better for the slalom committee to adopt the system itself and roll it out to all clubs? Payment for the system can then be taken in the same way judges and timing fees are paid - amounts to be agreed. That way clubs who may not be as tech confident as say Shepperton can rely on a central system without having to reinvent the wheel (as Dee suggests) .

You may be misunderstanding something here? A bit of background:

• The system we used at Shepperton has been/is being developed by myself and my son as such we own, run and maintain the code (though if we got fed up with it we would happily pass it on); it is designed to be central and I could add another race tomorrow if desired. (if you go to the website http://www.canoeslalomentries.co.uk you will see that there is now a (very short!) list of events, other events could easily be on this list).
• I don't believe the committee as a whole has the capability (or desire?) to take on running and maintaining the system (though, of course, some committee members may have the appropriate skill set - I don't know).
• Setting up a club/competition currently involves me manually adding some basic data to the database. By the end of this year, there will be onscreen pages to set up new competitions, which could probably be used by a committee member if appropriate, but entering this data is not the same thing as running the system.
• There is a series of pages that enable the organiser to tweek parameters (eg closing dates) if required, but which will default to standard rules in any case (based on division).
• There is a separate set of pages (some screen shots at https://www.dropbox.com/s/rk4tumdfgpg86 ... .docx?dl=0) that allow the organiser to add postal entries (so that they appear on line), cancel entries, accept paddlers from the waiting list etc. These pages don't require huge technical skill, but a moderate capability with a mouse and keyboard. An organiser who has never used a computer will struggle but anyone who has used a spreadsheet, say, to keep a record of entries should be perfectly capable.
• If the organiser can't cope with a certain amount of end user computer use then the whole concept of online entries will probably fail, as someone needs to manage cancellations, waiting list entries etc. However, the processes involved do not require technical expertise, just access to the internet and the ability to click the appropriate button

The card reader was supposed to show that as a club we tried to keep it simple and not distinguish between card payers (who cost us) and cash/cheque (who don’t). You could argue that the cash payers lose out but there are a whole lot of winners and losers in a club for example those who need to use club equipment and those who don’t. But the overriding factor is in supporting the club. Or in this case a simple online entry fee system.

Thanks, me just missing the connection

My thinking was that the overheads would be set the same value or percentage across the board.

Would that it were that simple.

To me your op figures looked as though they might end up different for each event. What I was trying to say was keep it simple.

In a sense, we were trying to keep it simple The problem is that the transaction charges to us have a fixed element and then a percentage, this is how it is. So if the entry fees are lower then then the overall percentage is a higher amount because of the fixed fee element, hence our need to have a slightly higher transaction fee percentage at lower divisions. We certainly can't do it as a fixed fee because the cost to us is not fixed.
Other credit card processors will haven different fee structures, and, as I said earlier, this was a more general proposal than just that for Shepperton, so we thought it would be simplest to use a percentage based on division to set a maximum fee.
One option would be to just not have a set maximum and just allow clubs/systems to charge any appropriate fee, but I thought, maybe wrongly that the ACM would be reluctant to sign up to a rule that effectively gave a system operator carte blanche to charge as much as they wanted.

I assume the report from the payment system would not be broken down by club or event. And therefore not distributable.

The advantage here might be that if the entry fees are paid centrally - the necessary costs can be dealt with centrally and the club is reimbursed a net figure after levies, judges and timing team fees and electronic fees etc

I have described the system payment mechanism in detail elsewhere so won't go into detail here. But briefly........ The paddler pays by credit/debit card, the fees are stripped out and the money goes into a separate holding account for the club where it remains until 5 days after the event after which it can be transferred directly to the club's bank account**. The reason for the delay is :

• Most club treasurers (from what I've heard) would rather see one or two payments rather than lots of small ones going in (easier to do the accounts).
• If we transferred early and then had to process a cancellation, this would cause all sorts of headaches (particularly if it was for the whole event!) with the need to retrieve money from the club account.
• Stripe (the company we use to actually take payment and process the card) require a 5 day delay, so it is easier to require a wait of 5 days after the event (though in theory we could make it 5 days after last transaction as long as event has happened, just a bit more complex to code!

The organiser can see on line exactly who has paid what for their event (for online payments), so they are very much by event and appropriately distributable.

**We could, if so desired, pay all the money (post transaction fee) into a slalom committee account; they could then take out the levies/judging fees and transfer the remaining amount to the club but, as djberriman says, this will leave the club out of pocket for longer.

[BaldockBabe]

Hi Dee!

I am happy with the proposal and think it is the way to go. However, don't get too prescriptive as to the level of fees that can be charged. As you said, these can be different depending on the system used.

When I enter running events they clearly state before I pay what the "admin" charge is so I can chose to either pay it or not enter the event. There is also usually an additional charge for using a credit card which also clearly stated. Provided that we don't start becoming like Ryanair I don't think anyone will have a problem with it.

[Dee]

There seems to be two main themes:

• Just up the entry fees to cover transaction costs - I don't believe this will work; it is a disincentive to organisers, is complex to achieve and will create issue with enhanced fees etc
• Put the rule forward, but without any specific limitations on the amount that can be charged (at the end of the day, if it is too much paddlers will just use the postal method instead)

I will incorporate the latter into the proposal




Edit: when I say "complex to achieve", this is perhaps inaccurate. It is more that it makes it more complex for organisers to know what they are going to receive, as it will be different for online vs postal, and different for paddlers who pay separately for Sat and Sun, and different if a paddler enters multiple classes at the same time. The bit that does become complex is refunds (which are already harder than you might think!)

[boatmum]

"
You may be misunderstanding something here? A bit of background:"

I don't believe I am, but sorry I should have said "... wouldnt it be better for the slalom committee to adopt A system itself..." I fully appreciate you own the code for the Shepperton system

My point is would it not be better to find something that can be adopted sports wide with some future proofing built in.

With regard to the point about clubs having to wait for their money - given the right system and everyone agreeing a procedure, net fee reimbursement need not take long and I would have thought it would take some of the "pain" out of the race admin for many clubs, particularly those who are unable to accept debit or credit card payments.

I believe there will soon come a time when events will have to be cashless. While the banks have done a U turn on the abolition of cheque books by 2018, I would be surprised if a chequeless system in the UK isnt far away, so again I was thinking of future proofing a system so it doesnt have to be constantly revisited taking up volunteer time that could be better spent on other things.

Cheers

[Dee]

"
My point is would it not be better to find something that can be adopted sports wide with some future proofing built in.

I think this is what we were hoping to achieve in developing our system; we won't and can't force competitions to adopt it, but hope that organisers will (otherwise, quite frankly, we will have wasted a lot of time to no avail. Please note: there will be no one to blame but ourselves. We just decided to plug the hole; no-one asked us to do it).

I don't believe there is an off-the-shelf system out there, if there is why didn't we start using it eons ago.

It's also worth noting that THE slalom website is not owned/run by the slalom committee; it's owned and run by Nick, but that doesn't stop it being a useful resource for the whole sport. I guess we were hoping that our system would go the same way

What we are trying to do with this rule is make it possible for a club to use an online system without applying for enhanced entry fees to cover transaction costs.


PS I'm not anti your suggestion re centralising the management of payments (or particularly pro either) but it does need another volunteer to mange it centrally and pay back out to the clubs. It was first put forward as a suggestion on these boards a few years back, but no one took it any further, so I'm guessing no-one felt strongly that it was the right thing to do.

[Pingu]

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)

[BaldockBabe]

I would rather the surplus was used to back new Div 2 events or towards the development of the sport than to subsidise transaction fees for those wanting to pay online!