ACM Motion 6.1 1 Entry Fee Increases - 'Just for Fun, to see what people think'

[Canadian Paddler]

AGAIN heavily editted/paraphrased, please feel free to ask for more details, but my fingures are tiring
Currently entry fees go up by the Retail Price Index (RPI) each year. Recently econmici measurements have measured by Consumer Price Index (CPI).

This motion increases entries each year by the lower or RPI/CPI

If accepted: Div 1 entries will be £15.75 and div 4 seniors £5.75.
If rejected: Div 1 entries will be £16.25 and Div 4 seniors £6.00

[Nick Penfold]

Apart from the Treasurer, why would anyone vote against?

[quaker]

Do entry fees actually need to increase year on year in line with CPI or Inflation, or can we put them on hold for a year?

Can someone tell me the direct costs that increase to bring about the fee increase?

I understand that insurance increases... but we are all BCU members and covered through the liability insurance. Admin costs increase... but tend to heavily rely on peoples free support? Venue costs increase.... but car parking/catering at those sites increase covering some costs.

And how come the CPI/Inflation appears to increase in units of 25p? How come we get to vote on an increase?

[Canadian Paddler]

Rule UK 11.6.3 (p74) (one of teh details I edited out says (paraphrased) that entry fees go up by the increase from 1997, rounded to the nearest 25p. So the treasurer has to work out the increase, which may bring entry to £11 32.75p, this rounds to £11 25 this year, next year he works it all out again, from 1997, and calculates £11 48.93p, this then rounds to £11.50.

This was introduced to make it easier for organisers (like me) when taking entries so we do not have to deal with almost random amounts. But calculating from 1997 every time means that this years rounding does not affect next years entry.

Before this the AGM (as it was) always spent a long time debating entry fees.

I do not know about others, but our camping field costs go up by more than CPI each year, and we continue to make increasing losses on camping, but make up for this in the canteen. UNLESS you want to come and pay a lot more for camping?

Remeber 40% of entry fees go to fund the activity of the slalom committee, so this is not just event related inflation, but covers all of the slalom activities.

[Pingu]

Thanks CP. The preamble to the motion says:

The existing rule has served the Committee and the organising clubs well since it was introduced in 1997. It has enabled the entry fees to either remain unchanged or to increase by small amounts each year without the need to agree changes at each ACM.

As an illustration of the gradual increases that have resulted, the entry division (Div 5) junior entry in 1997 was £3.00. In 6 of the subsequent 10 years there was no increase and in 4 of the years there was a 25p increase. By 2007 the equivalent fee (Div 4) had increased to £4.00.

In 2008, the fee will remain at £4.00 whether or not the motion is adopted. I think that this proves that the methodology of the existing rule is sound. The motion for this ACM is though an improvement as it allows the use of the Consumer Price Index, which is a better measure of general inflation.

[quaker]

You are still not convincing me here!

Canadian PAddler you say that your camping costs increase each year and you make a loss on them. Surely you would be better pointing everyone to an alternative location to reduce the loss burden? (I'm not sure of your site so this may be impractial - apologies if it is). You haven't really mentioned a direct cost that increases to cause the increase in the entry fee.

Pingu thanks for those figures, but it is like the constructive discussions I have with my boss each year when the wage evaluations are handed out and he says everyone got 4%. Me on my little wage... 4% of nowt is nowt.... whereas 4% of a bigger amount is a greater increase. A junior Div4 entry may have increased by only 1 pound in ten years... but a junior Div1/Prem entry has increased by a lot more....(about 5 pound I think)

It won't be long before the privelege of competing for one day could cost upto 30 quid (20 entry and 2x5 for a protest on each run). That in real terms is close to some peoples take home day wage! A family with two competing kids would seriously have to start thinking about a remortgage!!!!!!!

[Pingu]

Quaker

I understand your desire for a permanent freeze in fees and I don't think I'll be able to persuade you otherwise.

My point was that the existing rule was well-constructed. In the example given, it did (in 6 years out of 10) result in an unchanged fee. The reason for the proposed change is that over the past couple of years, the RPI has been so much higher than the CPI. This revision should result in increases averaging just 2% per annum in the future.

[quaker]

I see I'm the only one championing a single year halt on fee increases and it looks like I'm fighting a losing battle here. I'm not after a full halt to the increase, just a sensible approach to increases... i.e. when a cost increases pass it on.

How about the idea that the increases do carry on being linked to the CPI/RPI.... but with a 5 or 10 year reassessment of the entry fee made by the slalom committee and event organisers (assuming that the slalom committee would act in the best interests of the paddler)?

That way we could ensure a natural progression of fee increases is kept through the divisions and that any sudden cost increases within a 5 year period can be factored in and passed onto the paddler.

[Nick Penfold]

Sorry Quaker, but I'm smiling about this whole thread. A race in Div 1 costs us something like £30 in fuel for the car, £40 or more for family meals and sometimes £50 for accommodation. And of course a proportion of the price of a boat and other kit. £15 or so for the actual race is the least of our worries.

[John Sturgess]

Perhaps worth pointing out that Triathlons cost £25-50 to enter (mostly between £30-£40). And their participation figures are climbing quite rapidly. (No, that is not an ACM proposal).

[Canadian Paddler]

Passed unanimously