DOUBLE EVENT FEES - Why?

surveyme · Post by **surveyme** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:29 pm

Is there any use in having a reduced entry fee for double events when there are none for Premier Div paddlers and only two for Div 1s'?

PaulBolton · Post by **PaulBolton** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:12 pm

I found the lack of Div1 double events a real disappointment. Why? Simply cause it means I will not get the variety of demanding venues I hoped to see. I don't think the entry fees in isolation are expensive, it's all the other associated costs, especially fuel. I know many Div1 events are mixed division and that I can judge one of the days but regardless, I don't add to my points tally this way, just my experience. Given the unofficial votes on this site prior to the ACM, it seems probable that the infrastructure of the system isn't providing the balance of competitions that a majority desire - surely this can't be good for the long-term health of our sport. For economic reasons, my competitions for 2008 will probably be the 3 at HPP (35 miles away) and the Llandysul double. Not much variety and quite demotivating but we all have to balance our priorities and this seems the most economic way of getting 5 scores in the bag. If this continues, I have to ask if I will still be competing in 5 years time and, does the sport really want over 40s like me with lots of things to balance, to continue?

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:22 pm

As a parent I share the same view, I think our events for this year will be the 3 @ HPP, Washburn and Tees.

I am not going to give up a full weekend for a one day event and travel 100's of miles it is not economically viable, I can think of much better ways of spending a weekend and paddling as a family at a fraction of the cost and get more enjoyment.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:50 pm

For those of us that live south it's always 100s of miles to an event (except of course for Shepperton).

Realistically though if you want to compete in any sport at National level then the chances are you are going to have to travel and the furth up the ladder you go the more travelling there will be.

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:29 am

Dee wrote:Realistically though if you want to compete in any sport at National level then the chances are you are going to have to travel and the furth up the ladder you go the more travelling there will be.

Dee, this is very true but if you compare slalom against polo in terms of value for money on water time etc. you will see a vast difference.

Slalom (Limit facilities in most cases)
Entry Fee Div 1 £15.75, water time ~ 6 minutes cost per minute £2.62

Polo (Heated indoor pool, showers, toilets, catering somewhere to sit and watch out of the elements)
Entry Fee National £10.00, water time ~ 56 minutes cost per minute £0.17

Travel expenses will remain constant regardless of the sport but the VFM once you are there is completely different!

So if you were going to travel 100's of miles for a one day event which would you go for?

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:45 pm

I'd go to a slalom any day.

If you want time on the water, why don't you paddle on a river for free? When you enter a slalom you are paying to enter a race and for all the infrastructure required for that including the ranking system. I find it difficult to understand the value for money in terms of time racing. Aren't you trying to go faster and reduce your times and therefore increase the cost per second?

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:45 pm

And when you play polo you are in a competition as well against other paddlers, so I can't see your argument here.

There are ranking systems and infrastructure in polo and the talk of infrastructure within slalom surely is not relevant as the computer system for the results and the Tutti costs must have been written off years ago bearing in mind most of it was donated and the Tutti is using WW2 technology.

To 'increase' surely decrease the cost per second you have a long way to go, in fact you would need to be slower to get your monies worth.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:38 pm

I can't really see the reasoning at looking cost of water time for polo vs slalom; they are very different sports. OK they both involve water and boats - so does sailing, rowing, wwr, etc.

It is just unreasonable to compare:
- My understanding of polo is that a pool is used for a match for say a couple of hours whereas slalom races have all day! Div 1 has free practice so lots more water time available
- polo involves teams of people sharing a fairly small area of water. You don't say whether polo is £10 per person, per team or per match and I don't know how many are in a team but assuming say 6 a side at £10 each, that £120 for 56 mins, not £10.
- Swimming pools are flat - slalom is generally on bouncy water and most slalom paddlers seem to prefer that.

Now, personally, I think anyone that gets in a small piece of kevlar/plastic on a cold day and subjects themselves to the vagaries of rivers and rocks in order to get between a number of poles as quickly as they can is completely and utterly bonkers.

Equally I think that anyone chosing to risk being bashed on the head/nose etc in a polo match, rather than use a pool for swimming in, is exhibiting complete insanity and needs their head seeing to.

At the end of the day it really is down to personal choice. If you prefer one sport to another you will find all the reasons in the world as to why your favourite is better value, better for you etc. Trying to compare them in terms of value for money just doesn't wash.

In the meantime I will continue acting as unpaid secretary, long-distance taxidriver, banker and washer woman for my son and other half simply because it's what they want, even if they are bonkers.

PaulBolton · Post by **PaulBolton** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:44 pm

Dee makes a good point. Everyone on this site is probably very committed to slalom and passionate about the sport, so pol isn't really relevant. I paddle 4 or 5 times a week in an attempt to stay fit enough not to make a fool of myself at slaloms. I haven't won anything in years and never will, but I really enjoy the thrill of competing and trying to beat my own self-imposed targets(not to come last or get demoted!!). It saddens me then that my opportunities for competing in Div 1 are limited on the basis of a unfortunately essential investment appraisal - unless close to home, single events are hard to justify when there are many other financial demands to balance. I don't want only doubles, a recognise a mixture is needed. However, I think just 2 Div1 doubles is damaging for the sport and will result in some people competing less or finding alternatives (such as polo!!!). 4 or 5 doubles spread around the country would, I believe, strike a better balance and is what a majority favour.

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:16 am

Dee wrote:It is just unreasonable to compare:
- My understanding of polo is that a pool is used for a match for say a couple of hours whereas slalom races have all day! but the competitors cannot use the course for all day Div 1 has free practice so lots more water time available I allowed for this in the timing if they only get one official practice
- polo involves teams of people sharing a fairly small area of water so is a slalom course in terms of area. You don't say whether polo is £10 per person,,,,, but assuming say 6 a side at £10 each, that £120 for 56 mins, 10 x 6 used to be 60 when I went to school? I based it on a per person comparison
- Swimming pools are flat so are some slalom courses- slalom is generally on bouncy water and most slalom paddlers seem to prefer that. agreed

Now, personally, I think anyone that gets in a small piece of kevlar/plastic on a cold day and subjects themselves to the vagaries of rivers and rocks in order to get between a number of poles as quickly as they can is completely and utterly bonkers.Here Here

Equally I think that anyone chosing to risk being bashed on the head/nose etc in a polo match, rather than use a pool for swimming in, is exhibiting complete insanity and needs their head seeing to. competitors wear face guards and CE approved helmets and BA's unlike some slalom paddlers! and they do not play if their equipment does not meet approval

At the end of the day it really is down to personal choice. If you prefer one sport to another you will find all the reasons in the world as to why your favourite is better value, better for you etc. Trying to compare them in terms of value for money just doesn't wash. I disagree with that statement as there is a comparison, you still need officials, referees, timekeepers, results and a BCU committee to run it. You would be supprised how many slalom paddlers are also polo players! as the sport does cross over and the origin of polo, it was started by slalom paddlers that wanted something to do in the winter when there was no races and were fed up with freezing there b***s off on cold rivers

In the meantime I will continue acting as unpaid secretary, long-distance taxidriver, banker and washer woman for my son and other half simply because it's what they want, even if they are bonkers. know the feeling well!

Hi Dee

Not having ago at you but I have entered a few comments in your reply.

We do however need more double events, I am sorry but to travel for instance to Shepperton for the day would cost about £65.00 in fuel alone, Tully £140.00 (not that you could do it in a day) Bala £70.00 (again this is pushing it in a day) plus entry fees. I to along with my 3 daughters and partner are commited to the sport but I cannot justify this type of money for a days competition.

surveyme · Post by **surveyme** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:16 am

It's great to see many comments on this subject. However the original aim of the subject was to judge if other people were in favour of "double" events and whether this would add to those taking part over a weekend in any location(s).

It seems to me from comments I've heard over the past year or so, that many more competitors (fun or serious) might be inclined to travel where there is an expectation that an event will last two days and not one.

It is relevant for people as overall expense is a consideration when you do anything - some people by Heinz products others the supermarkets own "value" brands because of value considerations - perhaps as a perception of "value for money" or (maybe) because limited financial resources mean a choice of how many events they can attend. Are we endanger of becoming an "elitist" sport?

I heard it once said - ONCE only mind you - that the organisers of this sport were interested in developing it and making it more accessible to everyone. I simply can't except that as being true, when in one easy move they could do so by encouraging clubs to run "double" events. Last year I heard from a member of Llandysul, that they were positively DISCOURAGED from doing so - not the sort of action that will be seen as positively promoting the sport!

Combined with removing many events from the ranking system and reducing the ability of members to compete in the higher ranks, I can't see anybody being encouraged to take up - or stay within - the sport for very much longer.

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Apologies for high jacking your thread.

I think we have all heard the "making the sport more accessible" line, but it seems that extra hurdles are being put in the way at every step, certainly reducing the number of double events is another hurdle as I see it along with the changes to the ranking system will only be a detriment to the sport and discourage rather than encourage participants.

It appears the more "elite" you become the less opportunities there are to race, hardly an incentive.

And before anyone comes out with the line about putting a proposal at the ACM our club which is one of the biggest in Yorkshire has about 7 or 8 people that compete in slalom which is quite a small number, we have about 40+ that play polo and the rest of the members enjoy open canoeing, river running, touring and walking and these people are out most weekends enjoying the rivers and countryside.

Bring back more double events has got to be the key at the higher end, otherwise div 2/3 is going to get awfully crowded with all the demotions.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:04 pm

Geebs

6*£10 = £60, but I was assuming 2 teams of 6 and 2*60 = 120!

That aside.

This year Shepperton will be running it's first div 2 slalom of the season as a double - in the past it's always been a single event on the Saturday. This is an experiment to see if the numbers increase for the div 2 at least (the div 1 will still be Sunday only).

Of course the div 1 event won't be helped by world class choosing to run a training weekend to clash with our event!

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:09 pm

Dee wrote:Of course the div 1 event won't be helped by world class choosing to run a training weekend to clash with our event!

That's very helpful of them.

What was the thing about encouraging participants at events? and encouraging clubs to run events?

surveyme · Post by **surveyme** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:59 am

Its not the first time such a clash has happened. What is it with those folks - the last time they apologised and told Shepperton it wouldn't happen again - clearly they don' care or are just arogant in the manner they treat clubs and organisation who are trying to do their best for the sport.