Firstly I'd like to thank all those who helped in any way make this weekends racing such a success. We hope you enjoyed the water level giving an exciting 2 days races!
These events cannot be run smoothly without the cooperation, good nature and assistance of each and every one of you, which is just one of the reasons we hoped to make this event more comfortable for everyone by hiring the local village hall, providing additional toilets and warm dry changing area as well as place sit and relax while having lunch or for video analysis.
We have worked hard as a local club to build relations with the local businesses and home owners many of whom support our sport and the revenue it brings to the area 3 times a year.
We had considered this year a success so it saddens me greatly to have received this email on my return home from work this evening.
I live in Grandtully, where sadly we are well used to the inconvenience of canoeists parking without any consideration for others, leaving equipment in the road beside their vehicles, getting changed in the road beside their vehicles, causing obstruction to access for others, and generally being irresponsible and inconsiderate. However we reached a new low yesterday (8th March), with someone peeing in the street, in the road into our small group of houses, against someone's garden wall. Why? Too lazy to use the SCA car park, I guess, where I'm sure you do have an actual toliet. Please ensure your members and their associates at least try to behave even slightly like reasonable human beings.
Whoever you are, thank you so much for ruining the reputation of your fellow paddlers and the goodwill that we have fostered in our local community which enables us to run these events for your benefit. Please feel very free not to come to this venue again!
Shona Jennings
Race Organiser
Tully 8th March
Re: Tully 8th March
How sad to have the weekend spoiled by this complaint. As Shona says, there is a great deal of effort that goes into fostering good relationships with those that live in the village. The majority of canoeists are decent polite individuals but as we know, it only takes 1 person to spoil things for others. If the culprit reads this, it would be good if they would apologise to the complainant.
The only way to avoid this sort of bad publicity is look at options to ensure that people use the SCA car park rather than park in the village. If everyone parked in the SCA carpark, the locals would not be exposed to practices that the slalom paddlers are more accepting of.
So, how can we encourage paddlers to park in the SCA car park? I can only assume that paddlers park in the village to avoid the parking charges. I know that there is an amount that I am prepared to pay to park after which I will look for alternatives. So, I'm reasonably happy to pay £2 per day but baulk at the £4 that has been charged per day. In 2013, the SCA charged £200 to event organisers at Grandtully for the use of the car park and toilets. ( The SCA grants no concessions to the organising club for running an event and generating campsite income at Grandtully so even those adults without paddling children whose only reason for being at Tully is to help run the event pay the full campsite fees).
Is £200 a reasonable charge? Should the SCA be supporting the paddlers and the clubs trying to run events? Would people be more likely to park if they were charged £1 per person per day or asked for a recommended contribution but they can pay less? Finally, should we debate what the reputation of the locals is worth?
The only way to avoid this sort of bad publicity is look at options to ensure that people use the SCA car park rather than park in the village. If everyone parked in the SCA carpark, the locals would not be exposed to practices that the slalom paddlers are more accepting of.
So, how can we encourage paddlers to park in the SCA car park? I can only assume that paddlers park in the village to avoid the parking charges. I know that there is an amount that I am prepared to pay to park after which I will look for alternatives. So, I'm reasonably happy to pay £2 per day but baulk at the £4 that has been charged per day. In 2013, the SCA charged £200 to event organisers at Grandtully for the use of the car park and toilets. ( The SCA grants no concessions to the organising club for running an event and generating campsite income at Grandtully so even those adults without paddling children whose only reason for being at Tully is to help run the event pay the full campsite fees).
Is £200 a reasonable charge? Should the SCA be supporting the paddlers and the clubs trying to run events? Would people be more likely to park if they were charged £1 per person per day or asked for a recommended contribution but they can pay less? Finally, should we debate what the reputation of the locals is worth?
-
Haggis Hunter
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:17 pm
Re: Tully 8th March
The car parking for this years race was £5 per car for the entire weekend and included the additional facilities of the town hall. Officials who did not have associated paddlers with them were not charged. I think on balance, taking into account the facilities we provided and comparing it to what I have personally paid for events in other areas, that this was not an unfair charge...£2.50 per day. I have paid £5 to park in a field with a port a loo not including camping!
All organisers are faced with overheads that are out of their control and most do their utmost cover these costs whilst keeping the cost to the paddlers at a minimum. There are very few races I have been to over the past 5 years where there has not been a parking charge and very few where the facilities provided matched or surpassed those at Tully at the weekend.
All organisers are faced with overheads that are out of their control and most do their utmost cover these costs whilst keeping the cost to the paddlers at a minimum. There are very few races I have been to over the past 5 years where there has not been a parking charge and very few where the facilities provided matched or surpassed those at Tully at the weekend.
-
BaldockBabe
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:55 am
Re: Tully 8th March
Unfortunately this behavour is not limited to Tully. As the starter I frequently see guys (sorry, but it is only the guys) getting out of their boats and having a pee before their run. At HPP there can be a number of them lined up weeing against the trees. Not sure why but they are more often than not C1/ C2 men 
More often than not this happens in public places where there are other facilities avaialble so there really is no excuse for it.
I do hope the person concerned apologises.
More often than not this happens in public places where there are other facilities avaialble so there really is no excuse for it.
I do hope the person concerned apologises.
Re: Tully 8th March
Car Parking charges were not unreasonable but the Grandtully event prior to yours charged £8 for the weekend which I know put many people off parking. It was great that you didn't charge volunteers and I know that this is appreciated. Organising clubs need to recoup their expenses so if you are charged, then you need to pass this charge on for parking. My point still stands - is £200 worth more to the SCA than safeguarding our reputation in the local community by ensuring that all competitors park in the car park.
Re: Tully 8th March
This clearly reflects very badly on the sport and I will raise the issue of behaviour in public at races with the Slalom Committee. This was not the only offending behaviour in the area at the weekend. On the Saturday there was changing in the street right down to underwear which again was not needed and was viewed and commented on by members of the public.
With regard to the particular issues of parking and cost we have as CeeBee notes in the past at some of the races effectively rented the whole car park and simply asked for donations which has had a positive effect on parking elsewhere. We did not however get close to covering our costs for this and unless the SCA changes its strategy of making money out of slalom racing (there are no charges at other times for parking) we will have to go to the trouble of charging for parking and this will displace vehicles and paddlers into the community.
BaldockBabe is not alone in seeing this activity frequently on start and I can confirm that it is the males with, one memorable exception, although it in my experience has not been confined to Canadian Paddlers.
With regard to the particular issues of parking and cost we have as CeeBee notes in the past at some of the races effectively rented the whole car park and simply asked for donations which has had a positive effect on parking elsewhere. We did not however get close to covering our costs for this and unless the SCA changes its strategy of making money out of slalom racing (there are no charges at other times for parking) we will have to go to the trouble of charging for parking and this will displace vehicles and paddlers into the community.
BaldockBabe is not alone in seeing this activity frequently on start and I can confirm that it is the males with, one memorable exception, although it in my experience has not been confined to Canadian Paddlers.
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Re: Tully 8th March
First and foremost I do not believe that this behaviour is acceptable, particularly given the near plethora of facilities that are now publically available in Grandtully.
However there is a real argument to suggest that the SCA are the architects of their own demise. I was at the AGM in Aberdeen in 1979 when the motion was put to the membership to purchase the Station yard and develop a facility for canoeists. One of the primary arguments was the number of complaints being raised on parking and changing etc. in Grandtully by paddlers. Through the 80's and 90's, the focus was on the provision of cheap alternative to get cars off the roads with basic changing and parking in the station yard. Indeed I was commenting to my son at the recent prem event the dearth of campers and cars in the station yard. At it's peak you would struggle to find free space and often once parked you were there for the day.
Come the turn of the millennia and P&KDC decided to shut the public toilets and sell the public car park onto the SCA. The focus shifted to provision of a commercial enterprise with slaloms regarded as the cash cows. Instead of the honesty charges applying rates were hiked up and the site was policed with demands for payment. Camping rates were raised to a level comparable with local commercial sites, yet without the facilities and site management. Parking was charged at a premium. Meanwhile for other events using Grandtully including the WWR, Tay Descent and freestyle events, discounts and packages were offered. Discounted parking and camping, free shuttle bus service to/from Perth etc. Commercial agreements were established with local rafting companies to use the facilities and even have seasonal bases on site. The site was developed with additional facilities and storage that had no attraction to the transient paddler or visiting competitor. Yet the former Treasurer and current CEO insist that slalomists must pay their share, meanwhile the details of revenue and expense are buried amidst summary balance sheets.
From my Management Studies course I recall a figure often quoted that it takes 10 times the effort to win back a dissatisfied customer than to attract a new customer. Unfortunately it looks like the complaints are reverting to the 1970's, so we have an awful lot of work to win back and re-establish the Station Yard as the primary base. For the SCA it is not only the balance sheet but reputation and future sustainability is at risk, that frequently needs investment to protect.
CD
However there is a real argument to suggest that the SCA are the architects of their own demise. I was at the AGM in Aberdeen in 1979 when the motion was put to the membership to purchase the Station yard and develop a facility for canoeists. One of the primary arguments was the number of complaints being raised on parking and changing etc. in Grandtully by paddlers. Through the 80's and 90's, the focus was on the provision of cheap alternative to get cars off the roads with basic changing and parking in the station yard. Indeed I was commenting to my son at the recent prem event the dearth of campers and cars in the station yard. At it's peak you would struggle to find free space and often once parked you were there for the day.
Come the turn of the millennia and P&KDC decided to shut the public toilets and sell the public car park onto the SCA. The focus shifted to provision of a commercial enterprise with slaloms regarded as the cash cows. Instead of the honesty charges applying rates were hiked up and the site was policed with demands for payment. Camping rates were raised to a level comparable with local commercial sites, yet without the facilities and site management. Parking was charged at a premium. Meanwhile for other events using Grandtully including the WWR, Tay Descent and freestyle events, discounts and packages were offered. Discounted parking and camping, free shuttle bus service to/from Perth etc. Commercial agreements were established with local rafting companies to use the facilities and even have seasonal bases on site. The site was developed with additional facilities and storage that had no attraction to the transient paddler or visiting competitor. Yet the former Treasurer and current CEO insist that slalomists must pay their share, meanwhile the details of revenue and expense are buried amidst summary balance sheets.
From my Management Studies course I recall a figure often quoted that it takes 10 times the effort to win back a dissatisfied customer than to attract a new customer. Unfortunately it looks like the complaints are reverting to the 1970's, so we have an awful lot of work to win back and re-establish the Station Yard as the primary base. For the SCA it is not only the balance sheet but reputation and future sustainability is at risk, that frequently needs investment to protect.
CD
Re: Tully 8th March
I totally agree and Slalom are certainly viewed as Cash cows by the SCA.
I would also add that not only do the SCA charge at Slalom races but they also charge the SCA Performance Squad a few thousand pounds (exact figure will not be revealed but last figure heard was £5000) to enable them to use the toilets at training days, camping for a few days during the summer season when training and the Breadalbane boat store. When the budget was under pressure, the previous National Coach wanted to stop this arrangement to use this money directly for the slalom athletes but the previous treasurer and current CEO would not allow this. You could understand this if this money was actually needed to support the costs of the site but it isn't and is therefore sitting in the SCA reserve fund.
You may also be interested to know that the SCA pay a £500 charge to enable slalom to use the riverbank for the hut and gates. This used to be charged as a general SCA expense - not unreasonable when you consider that all slalom paddlers are also members of the SCA. This support was also withdrawn by the previous treasurer and current CEO with no discussion and the Slalom Committee (who also do not get any financial support from the SCA) pay this charge using the proceeds from levies.
The SCA behave as a monopoly and there is no alternative organisation in Scotland to join to enable paddlers to compete. If there was, I wonder how many members would choose an organisation which supports and encourages competition.
I would also add that not only do the SCA charge at Slalom races but they also charge the SCA Performance Squad a few thousand pounds (exact figure will not be revealed but last figure heard was £5000) to enable them to use the toilets at training days, camping for a few days during the summer season when training and the Breadalbane boat store. When the budget was under pressure, the previous National Coach wanted to stop this arrangement to use this money directly for the slalom athletes but the previous treasurer and current CEO would not allow this. You could understand this if this money was actually needed to support the costs of the site but it isn't and is therefore sitting in the SCA reserve fund.
You may also be interested to know that the SCA pay a £500 charge to enable slalom to use the riverbank for the hut and gates. This used to be charged as a general SCA expense - not unreasonable when you consider that all slalom paddlers are also members of the SCA. This support was also withdrawn by the previous treasurer and current CEO with no discussion and the Slalom Committee (who also do not get any financial support from the SCA) pay this charge using the proceeds from levies.
The SCA behave as a monopoly and there is no alternative organisation in Scotland to join to enable paddlers to compete. If there was, I wonder how many members would choose an organisation which supports and encourages competition.