Thoughts on a new membership/revenue system

[Rdb811]

Originally Posted by Baldric

Another issue would be how the income would be divvied up between BF and HCs. Another whole can of worms!

Something which the current system doesn't address is that as membership increases, the proportion needed by the BFA vs the HC's will decrease (there can only be a limited number at the elite end by definition) and that the HC's need the incentive to grow.

[smarties]

Are we now not adding to the costs - the "Somebody" at the other end will need to be paid even if the comp organiser does not.
"Light blue & dark blue" cards again will also add extra admin costs on all levels -

surely a computerised system would be easier and cheaper in the long run? the initial database/website setup cost would need to be found but after that it would pay for its self with probably less admin costs than now. Barcodes would be another way forward.

[Rdb811]

Originally Posted by smarties

Are we now not adding to the costs - the "Somebody" at the other end will need to be paid even if the comp organiser does not.
"Light blue & dark blue" cards again will also add extra admin costs on all levels -

Opening an envelop and ticking off a list is hardly time consuming - chasing up the odd late / missing payment might be but nothing that can't be done with the existing set-up.

Different colour cards = no cost at all. (Possibly a tenner in lost bulk order discounts)

Originally Posted by smarties

surely a computerised system would be easier and cheaper in the long run? the initial database/website setup cost would need to be found but after that it would pay for its self with probably less admin costs than now. Barcodes would be another way forward.

That's what we tell the clients, while trying nnot snigger.

[Duncan Rowlands]

Originally Posted by Baldric

:

1) Universal mandatory individual membership, costing £9.50. Every member of an affiliated club would pay this with the club as gate keeper. Individual membership could be available to non-club members but at a higher rate (say £12.50)
Benefits of this level of membership would be basic personal injury insurance for fencing in your club only, and voting rights. Required for any of the licences described below.

But I renew my membership on-line to BF, not via my club. Going through my club would be a pain for both the club sec & I. This would be a retrograde step.

If I don't belong to a club, why should I pay more than a club member? I join on line; the admin costs are minimal. What do I get for my extra £3?

Originally Posted by Baldric

:
4) Level 2 competition licence. Cost - £19. Benefit of licence: allows you to fence (insured) in all level 1 events, but also national events and opens.

5) Level 3 competition licence. Cost - £19 + FIE cost. Benefit of licence - allows you to fence (insured) at all level 1 & 2, plus FIE licence.

Why bother with level 3? Just leave out all aspects of the FIE licence. The renewal date for the FIE is the start of the season (Oct), not on a rolling 12 month like BF. As Random pointed out, BF pay for the FIE licence of FIE referees, and so this would add a level of complexity for these people.

Originally Posted by Baldric

:
8) Level 1 coaching licence. Cost £30. Applies to coaches earning less than £5000 per year from coaching. Benefit of licence: Enhanced liability and indemnity insurance, access to coach education system.

9) Level 2 coaching licence. Cost £80. Applies to coaches earning more than £5000 per year (ie the professionals). Benefit of licence: as level 1 licence, but more access to CPD, insurance cover includes coaching teams abroad. Required for national squad coaches.

How would you enforce this? Any income I derive from coaching is between HMRC & myself. I sure as hell ain't telling BF what I get! Do you intend to apply the £5000 demarcation to gross takings, net profit, or taxable profit after capital allowances?

[Duncan Rowlands]

Another point on the coachs licence.

Do you intend to make such a licence a mandatory requirement for a coach to trade? Will you be negotiating with HMRC to have it included in the list of approved subcriptions to professions bodies & societies (List 3) so that members can claim the cost as a tax deductable expense against their coaching income?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Baldric

... stuff ...

Why make it so cumbersome and complicated?

Ps. I didn't see this thread earlier when I posted the same question elsewhere.

[smarties]

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

But I renew my membership on-line to BF, not via my club. Going through my club would be a pain for both the club sec & I. This would be a retrograde step.

but if the club could earn a small profit from your membership this would help the club finances in some way for new kit, extra coaching etc. Most members would happily pay the extra £3.00 knowing the club would make GOOD use of this little extra.

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

I don't belong to a club, why should I pay more than a club member? I join on line; the admin costs are minimal. What do I get for my extra £3?

because you will be supporting YOUR club - if you are a member of several clubs make an affiliation to one and support it -

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

bother with level 3? Just leave out all aspects of the FIE licence. The renewal date for the FIE is the start of the season (Oct), not on a rolling 12 month like BF. As Random pointed out, BF pay for the FIE licence of FIE referees, and so this would add a level of complexity for these people.

I maybe wrong but I think Baldric was discussing the fencers rather than the refs - if the BFA pay for the refs then there will be no change anyway

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

would you enforce this? Any income I derive from coaching is between HMRC & myself. I sure as hell ain't telling BF what I get! Do you intend to apply the £5000 demarcation to gross takings, net profit, or taxable profit after capital allowances?

your income should only be between yourself and the HMRC - this is for insurance purposes only - therefore it will be up to the coach to tell the truth to the BFA - if there is an accident and the coach has lied about his earnings his insurance will be invalid and recourse would have to come via a criminal proceeding no doubt brought by both the injured party and the insurance company - so the coach would be rather draft not to get the correct level of insurance. The insurance certificate showing the coaches level should be made available to the members of the club anyhow.- again, only as I read it

[smarties]

Originally Posted by Gav

Why make it so cumbersome and complicated.

Disagree - we currently have different levels of membership anyway - all the suggestion is to amend these levels to open membership out to the masses - fencing needs to take into account ALL the possible members we don't have and probably should have.
The cheaper general membership ensures everyone will join, therefore producing real fencing participant figures.
The different levels based on comps is far more realistic than age - we have many young fencers that will only compete in LPJS and fence for a social experience - why should they pay the same as those that want to take the sport more seriously and fence at a higher level or at more comps?
Effectively its a pay as you go type system - a consumer choice is the way to go

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

But I renew my membership on-line to BF, not via my club. Going through my club would be a pain for both the club sec & I. This would be a retrograde step.

You would still be able to renew your membership online if you preferred.

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

If I don't belong to a club, why should I pay more than a club member? I join on line; the admin costs are minimal. What do I get for my extra £3?

A better way of looking at it is that membership costs £12.50, but the NGB offers a bulk discount to clubs. Whether they pass on that discount to their members is a choice for the club to make.

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

Why bother with level 3? Just leave out all aspects of the FIE licence. The renewal date for the FIE is the start of the season (Oct), not on a rolling 12 month like BF. As Random pointed out, BF pay for the FIE licence of FIE referees, and so this would add a level of complexity for these people.

I only added it for completeness. I agree it is completely irrelevant to the vast bulk of members.

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

How would you enforce this? Any income I derive from coaching is between HMRC & myself. I sure as hell ain't telling BF what I get! Do you intend to apply the £5000 demarcation to gross takings, net profit, or taxable profit after capital allowances?

I was trying to differentiate between coaches who are largely amateur, but may accept money for giving lessons a couple of evenings a week, from those for whom coaching is a full time profession. Any reasonable mechanism would do, possibly even an "honour" system. It wouldn't be the end of the world if 5% of people slipped through the net, or cheated the system, so long as most people complied.

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by Duncan Rowlands

Another point on the coachs licence.

Do you intend to make such a licence a mandatory requirement for a coach to trade? Will you be negotiating with HMRC to have it included in the list of approved subcriptions to professions bodies & societies (List 3) so that members can claim the cost as a tax deductable expense against their coaching income?

It is not within the powers of sports NGB to restrict trade. That would require primary legislation, and I don't think it is at the top of the legislative agenda! The NGBs can use the levers that they do control (affiliation, insurance, appointment as team coaches etc) but can't make anything mandatory. Whether this would count as a tax exempt subscription, I don't know.

[grizz]

Overall, I like the ideas you are putting forward Baldric.

A few points/questions.

How would it work with schools? Would the children have to be members to be able to get a competition license?

Would schools have to become a club to be able to get insurance?

Jed

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by Gav

Why make it so cumbersome and complicated?

If you look at it from the position of most fencers, there is nothing cumbersome about it.

Many fencers (possible most) will just become members of the NGB, and won't even know that a transaction has taken place until the club secretary gives them their membership number.*

The vast majority of current fencing members would transact once with the NGB - when they bought their competition license.

A relatively small number of people, mostly those who have a deep understanding of the sport, would have to think a couple of minutes about what membership product(s) they needed. Even that would lessen after a year or two.

Club secretaries and treasurers would have more work, but they would also have the chance to make a few quid for their club out of it. If we can get the IT right, it shouldn't be too onerous. (Upload templates for mass membership seems the obvious option)


R


*Incidentally, I don't think that there should be an actual card. A membership number (possibly barcode as well to speed up check in at large comps) emailed directly would be much easier, and far less expensive and time-consuming to process. It would need an easy IT portal for comp organisers to upload a list of entrants membership numbers, and the database to return a list of invalid ones.

It would be very easy to have a numbering system where all level one licenses started with a 1 and all level two licenses started with a 2. Want to upgrade? Pay your money and get an email confirming your new number, which would be your old number with the first digit changed.

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by grizz

Overall, I like the ideas you are putting forward Baldric.

A few points/questions.

How would it work with schools? Would the children have to be members to be able to get a competition license?

Would schools have to become a club to be able to get insurance?

Jed

Hi Grizz

If the school children did not belong to an affiliated club, then yes they would have to become a basic member (£12.50) and then buy a comp license (another £9.50). I appreciate that isn't ideal, but it is a bit less than the £25 or £30 that they would have to pay now.

In an ideal world, the school fencer would join a club (and thus acquire the
basic membership as part of the club membership package) and later, when they entered their first comp, the only immediate "extra" would be the level 1 license.

My understanding is that most schools already have insurance, and so affiliation for them would be a choice. One of the reasons for the higher cost of membership for professional coaches would be enhanced insurance cover, which I envisage covering them to coach at non-affiliated club premises, and to coach non-members. (note - this would be cover for the COACH, not the non-members).

Before you all drown me in questions, can I repeat that this is just an idea of mine at this stage? I don't pretend to have all the answers.

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by smarties

Shame - this sounds like a very long and drawn out process - does this mean that it will take several years of tooing and throwing before things would change? - obviously, lots of work is needed, however it does sound like you have spent some time on this already to come up with such workable ideas in the first place. Is it not possible to agree in principle and get things moving on 1 level at least and with a time scale for the rest to follow? sorry to sound a bit naive but I think we all know things may need to change for the sport and just delaying the inevitable is always worse in the long run.

British Fencing, England Fencing and Scottish Fencing are all Ltd companies, and have boards of directors. WF and NIFU also have their management structures. All would need to agree - it couldn't just be arbitrarily imposed.

My best guess is that it would take 2 years to implement in full. Apart from anything else, someone who joins today is entitled to the benefits that they have paid for, for the next 365 days. Also, IT systems rarely work as specced from day 1.

Originally Posted by smarties

EXTRA income Suggestion?? (although no doubt I will get shouted down by someone)
BF - 1/4 of the income -
HC - 1/2 of the income - could 10% be given back to the region of the club/fencer to expand comps, training etc?
Fencing Charity - 1/4 of the income -this fund could be used to support those fencers selected to represent their country (WAL, SCO, NIR, ENG & GBR) with travel costs, kit, etc - could also be used for fencers of any age that require funding for any the above
do the numbers work to make any of this viable? - does anybody have any figures? -

Very roughly - from the current membership income:

BF get about £200k p.a.
EF get about £95k p.a.
The other home countries get about £40k p.a. between them.

By my calculation, the income from my proposed scheme would be a about £315k which is a little less than that - the difference being accounted for because I propose to make the Sword a paid subscription, taking it out of the current cost base.

BF bear virtually all the cost of running the system, paying the insurance premiums and (at present) printing and distributing the sword. They also employ other staff who do work on behalf of the whole sport, which benefits all home country members, as well as elite fencing. If you look at BF accounts, and remove the UKS grant funding, not very much of the membership income goes on elite fencing.

I don't want to get into a bun-fight over the exact split between BF and the HCs - that is a complex negotiation with lots of layers to it.

Regarding the charity - I would very much like to see a charity doing the work that you describe, but I think that its income should be based on voluntary contributions. For example, my personal membership cost under this scheme would drop from £40 to £12.50. I would happily donate the difference to a fencing charity, and tick the gift aid box. If I ever get round to making a will, I might even be tempted to leave a few quid to a fencing charity, but I don't think I would be tempted to make a voluntary donation to BF or even EF.

[pinkelephant]

What you are all forgetting is that change is, by definition, bad.

[miraberis]

Originally Posted by Rdb811

Not at all. We either have one "everyone joins for £10" or "a quarter pay £40) - not some kind of mix and match.

Why?
Are you suggesting that people who want insurance to fence at a club but not do competitions should pay the full £40? That's ridiculous.
Start with the prices we have now, ~£10 social membership, ~£40 competition membership (or introduce another class, say ~£25 for regional comps as suggested). Why is this a problem?

[Gav]

Baldric,

It is overly complex. All you are doing is instituting another bureaucracy.

Especially things like the tiers for coaches. Who exactly is going to police that? Are you now suggesting that people submit receipts? If not what's to stop them just going for the lower rate. I just don't see the point.

And what about this concept of tiering returns from competitions? Who is going to audit that? What's a level 1? What's a level 2? Who decides?

If we can get the IT right...

I actually laughed when I read this. So long as this sport remains resolutely amateur that's exactly the "IT" what you will get.

And I read the rest of your annotation with a lot of eye rolling. I know there's no real reason not to have online lookup but it seems many organisers have limited access to the net at tournaments.

I am not sure you can get away from cards either. Particularly if you want barcode scanning.

All of these things cost money you need to get from somwhere.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by pinkelephant

What you are all forgetting is that change is, by definition, bad.

I actually resent that Mavis because one thing I am not against is change.

[TLove]

Originally Posted by Baldric

Many fencers (possible most) will just become members of the NGB, and won't even know that a transaction has taken place until the club secretary gives them their membership number.

Indeed, and I am against that aswell. People should know exactly what they are paying their money for before they hand it over.

Having said that it is quite likely the only way we will not put some new members off is to 'tax' them by stealth. £10 would be, by the way, a full third of our yearly student rate fee if it were included.

By their nature, student clubs have a large intake of fencers at the start of each academic year and a relatively low retention in percentage terms. This means that in such clubs, the NGB will get a large cheque every year, paid for by people who can't afford it, and who are relatively unlikley to continue fencing compared to those in a non-university club.

[Baldric]

Wow Gav, you are in a negative mood today!

Originally Posted by Gav

Baldric,
It is overly complex. All you are doing is instituting another bureaucracy.

At the moment, a large part of membership income is spent on paying some nice ladies at HQ to stuff 10,000 envelopes per year with membership cards, and an unknown number of reminders. We also have more current membership categories than I am suggesting as "membership products" by the time you count social membership, and at least 3 categories of membership for each of 4 HCs, plus the coaches register. All of this could be replaced by a handful of membership products bought on-line or via the club.

Originally Posted by Gav

Especially things like the tiers for coaches. Who exactly is going to police that? Are you now suggesting that people submit receipts? If not what's to stop them just going for the lower rate. I just don't see the point.

In my model, the extra revenue from professional coaches is a tiny part of the total - I expected the vast majority to take the lower level. However as your reading of this board will no doubt confirm, there are some coaches who want very comprehensive insurance cover - more than a standard sports NGB policy will provide. I was trying to satisfy that need. My £5000 threshold is not important, as I mentioned higher up - any other mechanism would do.

Originally Posted by Gav

And what about this concept of tiering returns from competitions? Who is going to audit that? What's a level 1? What's a level 2? Who decides?

Ideally we would have a centralised entry system, in which case the money would be withheld centrally- thats easy. As for deciding the level, the NGB does. We did it recently for staged introduction of conductive foil masks, and defining the tiers took about 20 mins of discussion, and another 5 mins to write down clearly.

Originally Posted by Gav

I actually laughed when I read this. So long as this sport remains resolutely amateur that's exactly the "IT" what you will get.

Part of the Sport England grant funding is designated for upgrading membership IT systems. Its not a massive sum, but hopefully it will be enough to get a reasonably professional job done. In that respect, the other home countries may get a "freebie" - I hope they remember to say "thank you".

Originally Posted by Gav

And I read the rest of your annotation with a lot of eye rolling. I know there's no real reason not to have online lookup but it seems many organisers have limited access to the net at tournaments.

I am not sure you can get away from cards either. Particularly if you want barcode scanning.

You don't have to check the entries at the tournament - you precheck those who enter in advance, negating the need for cards at check in. For those organisers who want to take entries on the day, they could either arrange to have computer access, or decide to accept a print out membership email from BF and post-validate, or require a comp licence to be bought at the gate. £9.50 as a late entry fee? That same printout could carry a barcode if wanted. Lost your BFA card? Go back through your emails and re-print the PDF!

Originally Posted by Gav

All of these things cost money you need to get from somwhere.

See my note about SE funding above. We have a limited period of reasonably generous funding. If we don't take this chance to invest in some modernisation and expansion, I doubt we will get another chance.

Ray