BCU Membership - should it be compulsory??

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:24 pm

I've heard a few people talking about whether BCU membership should become compulsory for anyone joining a BCU affiliated club, a majority of these people aren't slalom (or any competitive discipline) paddlers.

as we know, to compete we have to be BCU members for certain reasons. but a lot of people say that it should be compulsory for insurance reasons for clubs & paddlers alike.

i just wanted to know what the general thought would be if you had to be a BCU member if you wanted to join a BCU club. and didnt take part in slalom or other discipline where its required.

Kazz · Post by **Kazz** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:12 am

The BCU are not just concerned with competition, they are there to represent all paddlers which would include recreational, independant, and competition disciplines--you only need to read a copy of the 'canoe focus' to realise this. Whilst I am uncomfortable with imposing any type of rule I would recommend that all paddlers become members of the BCU, it is the only organisation that represent all paddlers!!

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:47 am

I disagree with Kazz, I don't think the BCU represents all paddlers and many non-competitive paddlers would agree with me. The BCU still does not have a clear stance on the whole access debate (unlike the WCA and the SCA), which is probably the biggest thing that affects non-competitive paddlers. The new style coaching qualifications arguably only benefit the competitive and commericial side of the sport (too lengthy and expensive for volunteers). When non-competitive paddling I do not see how the BCU helps me at all (and don't mention access agreements that they may or may not have negotiated as I don't agree with them!). Put this question out on something like ukrgb and see what response you get. A large number of people on there who are BCU members, I am sure, would say they are only members because they have to be eg coaches or competitors.

I think if people joining BCU clubs were forced to also join the BCU you would just find that there become even more paddlers that are not affiliated to either a club or the BCU, so rather than making these people more "regulated" they are less likely to be.

As a competitor who has benefited from the C1 training days offered by the slalom section of the BCU I have really appreciated it, I just don't think that the non-competitive side benefits at all.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:52 am

If a non member joins a BCU affiliated club, the BCU affiliation fee goes up, so in some way the paddler is contributing towards the 'fringe benefits' such as they are

Personally I am against closed shops in all forms, but that does not mean I think Kazz is wrong to encourage others to join, just that it should not be a prerequiste, or part of the membership fee.

Where there are clear benefits, then we should encourage membership, or if they want to feel [art of the greater good, then go for it! Especially with the supporter membership that judges can take out for insurance if tehy do not paddle.

Slow Paddler · Post by **Slow Paddler** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:01 am

We've added a non BCU members fee onto our membership form for adults, as we as a club have to pay this to the BCU for each non member, two pounds I think.

It was seen as unfair on our members who are paying the full amount to the bcu & club membership to subsidise others, so it's now been added.

Regarding making people join the BCU properly, it is their call, obviously they need to for coaching & competitions, then 3star + certificates are cheaper.

Usually people starting out don't join, but once they get involved in competition or coaching, they then find they need to join the BCU.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:42 pm

I am not a member of the BCU, but I am a (non-paddling) member of Shepperton.

I don't really see why I should be expected to pay anything to the BCU so that I can generally help out and organise an event/do the prem rankings. If I had to join the BCU in order to be a member of the club then I would probably withdraw my club membership.

Now, here's a thought - perhaps there could be a scheme by which non-paddling volunteers could have free bcu membership. Just think of the fun we could have in defining who does "enough" to get free membership!

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:06 pm

I totally agree with Munchkin, and if this proves to be true then I can only assume that the BCU heirarchy have taken leave of their collective senses.

As someone who has been paddling now for over 15 years I've seen the BCU having to be dragged kicking and screaming to a more robust position on access by the SCA and WCA (and it's barely there now), the single biggest issue for the majority of people who canoe and kayak in this country, the vast majority of which are recreational not competitive paddlers.

Furthermore, there is significant unrest among the current membership around the effects that the new UKCC system is having on club coaches.

Compulsory individual membership of the BCU for all those who are members of BCU affliliated clubs would be the last straw for many and would almost certainly lead to a decline in the numbers joining clubs and/or clubs disaffiliating from the BCU.

As the BCU must be aware that it is not a legal requirement to be a member if you canoe or kayak I cannot believe that it would be so stupid as to go down this route (unless it knows something around a change in legal requirement that we do not).

On a personal level, due to its extremely poor peformanance on access, the only reason I have remained a BCU member in recent years is because I paddle slalom. If this change were to be introduced, I would give up slalom and leave the BCU, in protest if for no other reason.

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:44 pm

This sounds familiar to background proposals that have been circulating within the SCA for the past couple of years. Proposals that I believe have been discussed at Senior BCU level.

Basically looking at a couple of benefits:
1/ Increased income, last outline figures I saw put NGB Membership in Clubs at around the 20% mark. Potentially greater in the competitive Clubs but potentially lower in the recreational Clubs. View is if NGB Membership becomes derigeur for all Club members we can increase NGB income significantly and offset current gearing ratio of generated income vs public funding. BCU has been very successful at attracting funding but it has left teh BCU exposed to the argument that the level of public support is disproportionate to the level of internally generated funding (i.e. Membership).

2/ Reduction in Administration costs, several of the models circulating will pass the onus on membership administration to the voluntary Club officers. Clubs will collect memberships and then send summary details and monies to central office. Brings a whole new level of Data Protection and Admin to most Clubs. Means Club Membership secretary will have the role of verifying who are members of other Clubs, whether they have NGB Membership and then applying the correct charge and onpassing the correct fees to central office.

So net result sees BCU increase income, reduce expense and the argument is that this is all about fairness and justice and they represent all paddlers so we should all contribute equally.

The per capita fee for "Insurance" is a BCU con, I have commercial quotes from the same Broker for the same Insurance and the fee structure is based on bandings based on the size of the organisation. So yes a bigger organisation will pay more than a smaller group but it is not on a per capita basis. Indeed the larger the organisation the calculated per-capita charge reduces. BCU do not pass on the fee but pay on estimated membership for the year. Per Capita charges provides increased income and the justification is insurance. It may be interesting to hear what an Insurance Ombudsman would say about the scheme!

I have no problems in recommending NGB Membership on a range of issues, but at the end of the day it should be a personal choice not a requirement. I am involved with football; swimming; golf; badminton etc. as recreational past times - I would not contemplate NGB Membership for them, and I recognise that there are many who view paddlesport in a similar vein. NGB heirarchy need to sort out their stakeholder management and marketing to make the BCU something that attracts people and forget about membership expansion by stealth.

RussJohnson · Post by **RussJohnson** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:32 pm

i don't actually know if the BCU are thinking of the idea, i heard just general paddlers talking about it, all of them seemed to think of it been a good idea.

i am not to sure on either front, if this does happen, most of us wont need to worry as we pay to compete, but its those who are non paddlers (such as Dee) or who don't pay for reason x, y & z.

i don't think that its too much of a problem as the increase in revenue could surely be an advantage to all paddlers. i feel also that as kayakers/canoeists we should pay our respective governing body membership (probably not as high as it currently is though!). and surely with more members o the bcu we have more powers on what front the bcu take on access as surely all paddlers are united on that front!

but i still don't want paddlers to be forced into membership, maybe a small add onto original club memberships (£2-4) which can go to the bcu on an annual basis instead of the full fee on top of club fees.

like i said, it has its Advantages & Disadvantages (just like most things)

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:03 am

Why do "they" think it is a good idea and why do you think it is a good idea? Cyclists and walkers are not insured so surely it can't be the insurance reason?

Fairweather Paddler · Post by **Fairweather Paddler** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:13 am

Seedy Paddler wrote:BCU has been very successful at attracting funding but it has left teh BCU exposed to the argument that the level of public support is disproportionate to the level of internally generated funding (i.e. Membership).

Many funders will not give grants to 'exclusive' membership only clubs and groups. So beware that by increasing internally generated funding by membership fees may be detrimental on public funding and any short fall would potentially have to be generated by even higher memebrship fees!!

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:16 am

By exclusive, they mean a membership closed to certain groups. You can't argue that the BCU won't take any members they can get!

However, it does seem a daft proposal, and is more likely to lead to mass defections than any increase in BCU membership.

The BCU already charge £2 per non-BCU club member as part of the club's affiliation fees, I think this is to cover insurance. We have just this year started passing this onto our non-BCU members.

At the end of the day, we are a slalom and white water recreational club in the main, and the BCU has little to offer general white water paddlers. They are moving in the right direction these days with access, but my impression is that they wouldn't be if the paddlers themselves and other bodies such as the WCA and SCA hadn't already considerably toughened up their line on access.