Unofficial UK Slalom BBS

We haven't found a simple on-line payment option, and for the growing number of people who don't have cheque books paying a £9 deposit is difficult and this would at least mean they could just stick a £10 note in - some already do, and putting £1 change in with the bib isn't very practical.
Actual cost of bibs:
• Canyon Gear nylon bibs are £6.50 each. Iron-on bib numbers cost about £1 each, so the cost price of a bib is £8.50, £10.50 or £12.50 depending on whether a one-digit, two-digit or three-digit number is required (front and back). Average about £11, plus about 50p as a share of the delivery charges.
• Lycra bibs are £15 each, plus again say 50p for delivery

There are no specific rules for bib deposit, this is part of the process, but put to the meeting for completeness.

CP, I'm not sure what this motion is telling me?

I can see that an online system for applying for bibs would be useful but that this isn't available yet.

Is the bib deposit going up to £10?

Is the bib deposit going up to £10?

Yes, I hope that's the intention of this item.

Ready for a shock..... I agree with Nick. The basic point of the motion is to increase the Bib deposit to £10. The rest is just preamble.

So not a rule change, just a procedural one.

It is possible to do online and cheaply too (20p cost). It will just require a little work to create a link from the ranking list to apply for you bib, enter your bank details and take a single payment via direct debit. Currently in discussion so not guaranteed it will happen but I am looking at it.

You'd still have to send your bib back and in the short term proof of membership although we may be able to scrap the latter soon.

djberriman wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:04 pm

It is possible to do online and cheaply too (20p cost). It will just require a little work to create a link from the ranking list to apply for you bib, enter your bank details and take a single payment via direct debit. Currently in discussion so not guaranteed it will happen but I am looking at it.

You'd still have to send your bib back and in the short term proof of membership although we may be able to scrap the latter soon.

In practice the increase in cost may need to be more than 20p even using a single payment by direct debit, as if it is all online then cost of envelopes and postage will need to be accounted for. I couldn't get costs down to anything like 20p!

Indeed part of my discussion is the possibility to include P+P in the online cost. But until that is agreed then paddlers would need to include an SAE as now.

An added complexity is that a couple of the very kind bib officers just bring the bibs to the first race of the season and thus there is no posting and packaging.

Indeed that is very helpful.

What I am proposing will not affect that, cash, cheque etc will still be accepted, just be an online option as well.

Anything that helps avoid the dreaded collection of insufficient postage from the post office will be a help

It would be great if we can get an online system. So few people have envelopes or stamps these days.

It may be more work for the bib officer to have all the right sized envelopes and the right amount of stamps (or use the online royal mail facility and set up a slalom account so you print and pay for the postage labels) but suspect this may be no worse/less frustrating than trying to sort out the random assortment of bib applications they currently receive.

I have no objection to increasing the bib deposit and looking at the bib costs it seems the right thing to do. Was just wondering how it would work in practice next year. Would a bib voucher plus £1 have to be sent to get a bib or is someone going to keep track of who has different value bib deposits?

When we were paying nine pounds for bibs the vouchers said £8 - they may still do so.

It would, I think, continue to be exchange voucher for bib - no extra payment

If you cash a voucher in, you would get the £8 back rather than the £9/£10 that you paid, but whilst just swapping for a bib there would be no difference

Double post

This was handled under article 5.9 and voted on immediately. The original motion was adopted nem con.