Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: When did we lose it?

  1. #21
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Francophile View Post
    Guys, let's put this into perspective.

    British Fencing is losing 10,000 -20,000 a year on events without including staff costs. That is unsustainable.
    Does this justify a lack of transparency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Francophile View Post
    1. Raising revenues, by increasing the number of entries, and increasing the price per entry. The entry for the British Youth Championships will be 35. That compares with the entry fee for the England Youth Championships of 33.
    Where or how do you account for the 30 poll tax (10 on three parents)?

    The 35 is a portion of a total fee of 65.
    The 35 portion (quoted) has increased from 24 which is 45% increase (yes a +45%)
    The levy has changed to 30 from 28 which is 7% increase

    The total fee has gone from 52 to 65 which is +25%

    Quote Originally Posted by Francophile View Post
    The hope is the number of entries should go up given the selection criteria have been relaxed from one in four to one in three entries qualifying.
    Why have the qualifiers at all? If we are so confident the 35 is the correct number we only have to double the number of entries at the BYC to increase the entry revenue. Or are we in denial about the existence of the 30 levy. In any case +45% should be more than enough to cover the losses on Championships that in 2017 didn't exist? or do they exist now? Who knows?

    Quote Originally Posted by Francophile View Post
    2. Reducing costs. BF is looking at all aspects of running competitions to make sure that it continues to provide quality events, while keeping costs as low as possible.
    Yes - Where is the evidence for this? I see plenty on the other side of the equation. Hidden in poll tax increases and the less hidden +45% increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Francophile View Post
    Compare this with the NAC in Kansas run by the US Fencing Association next month. There is a registration fee of $75 and an entry fee of $95 - total of $170 - that's 130 in sterling. The USFA makes more than $600,000 a year from its competitions.
    Given we are looking at a fee of 65 (half of the 130 quoted) why isn't the profit on events $300k per year ? ....
    Funny that.

  2. #22
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19

    Default

    A quick back of the envelope calculation.

    There were 1004 entries at the BYC's last year.

    So, even if you ignore the poll tax element of the BYC fee structure.
    If next years BYC has the same number of entries that equates to 35,140 in direct entrant fees.
    (the qualification ratio has changed from 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 - so number of entries is expected to go up)

    This is extra 11,044 if the number of entries next year remains at 1004.

    There are some who applaud a 45% increase in fees. because one aspect of the fee structure look optically like the EYC entry fee.

    At the regional qualifiers each of those 1004 entries had up to 3 entries locally. So, an extra 3012 entries at the regionals are also all being charged the poll tax.

    4016 entries at the regionals each charged 10 which is an income of 40,160.
    That is an extra 12,048 on last year (+7%). (12k is an interesting number in the BF accounts)

    There are some who think this 10 charge doesn't exist because its up to the regions how they collect/charge it.
    Shouldn't be in the equation because the Regions paid it.

    In any case without doing a proper analysis on regional entry levels and expected additional entries at the BYC's the total extra income raised is 23,092

    There are some who will continue to hide behind a claim made some years ago that events lost money. And that even now they loss between 10k to 20k but provide no recent evidence that the BYC's went from a net contributor to a loss maker and no evidence that costs have been looked at and addressed where possible.

    It has been said to me that the BYC's are not a grassroots initiative. They may or may not be true - I don't know. but I would hazard a guess that the regions are run by grassroots volunteers and they view their qualifiers as a grassroots event. A grassroot movements should be transparent to their own constituents on all activities they promote irrespective of whether the activity in question is or is not a grassroots initiative. Both the 10 and the 35 entry structure and make transparent the percentage changes.

  3. #23
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3

    Default [QUOTE=Nick;323359]So has the devolution efforts of the BFA failed?

    I think the devolution has been a success. From what I see coach, referee and armourer courses have increased. Certainly in South West we have more local competitions.
    What has failed is the COMMUNICATION link. There is now a Regional Digest and a Club Digest and of course, a general email. Not one of these was used to explain the financial crisis the BF faces. A little explanation(or transparency) goes a long way to avoiding responses such as those to the BYC fee increases.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akster View Post
    Does this justify a lack of transparency?



    Given we are looking at a fee of 65 (half of the 130 quoted) why isn't the profit on events $300k per year ? ....
    Funny that.
    Oooops, basic economic flaw I'm afraid, If I buy something for 10 and sell if for 20 I make a profit of 10. If I sell the same item for 10 I make 0 profit. In other words, if we charge half what the Americans charge but costs are broadly the same it is the profit that is reduced to 0, the costs don't go down, your profits do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •