Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5  

Potential Levy Cut

Show Profile  addison Posted: 2 February 2009, 6:54 PM  
Suppose one of the more dramatic things to affect our sport, if its goes ahead, is the proposed amendment for the AGM. This has been launched by OHV.

What it will do if it goes ahead, whether at 10% or maybe 15%, 20%... is that it will result in significant cuts to the sport. But from where? What should our priorities be if it is cut?

One thing that does make me laugh is that this amendment has been proposed in my view to stir up debate more so than anything else. It even says it in its proposal! I say, bring on this debate here on Maptalk!!

Show Profile  addison Posted: 2 February 2009, 7:05 PM  
Hypothetically lets say spending stayed the same at the NZOF. Therefore funding must be found elsewhere, so lets propose from within the sport.

People say, lets make events cheaper for 'promotion events' to people who are not part of the orienteering community. I, on the other hand, say lets make it more expensive. The majority of these people we see once and never again. So why should we disproportionally fund them? Why should we, the ones that inevitably put in time and effort for free, allow these people an absolute free ride?

The event levy, is basically a 'user pays' system of taxation. It is orienteerings version of GST. People like Jamie say "more clubs". So if a club, say in Tauranga, only ran a 10 event street series... then the current fee per senior member is about $10. Why not just decrease the club membership component, and INCREASE the levy to 30%? Then, in affect, we help to make it easier to join a club. To realise a monetary saving. We get more peoples emails, we get more people into our 'system' and more importantly we get more people involved!

OHV also makes the comment about NZOF paying money back for big events. CHOICE. I had my doubts. But back to Jamies ideas "more maps" then this helps to make big events subsidised. But what I propose, is rather than subsidising all big events, howsabout subsidising the big events that make new maps? If a club has an existing map with little mapping going on... then why subsidise it? What we should be doing is giving an incentive, via money, to make new maps!

Show Profile  Andrew M Posted: 6 February 2009, 10:07 PM  
Good on ya Simon for starting this debate. A event levy cut from 25% to 10% will have serious funding ramifications. I am not considering myself to be in favour of either option and since leaving the country have become even less concerned either way. But...

Current Budget is something like this from previous annual reports.

Income: around $100,000
Levies = $50,000 @ 25% or $20,000 at 10% of event revenue
Affiliation Fees = 15,000
Grants = 25,000

Expenses: around $110,000
Management = 25,000
Membership and Participation = 20,000
Public Awareness = 8,000
Competitive Performance = 54,000

Deficit is everything is spent which doesn't always happen is close to $10,000 pa.

If the event levies was reduced to 10% this means than the sport need to find another $30,000 to fund planned spending, or cut $30,000 from the sport.

Options could cut all spending under Competitive Performance, Coaching, Technical and High Performance. Remember grants under income are spent of individual campaigns such as School Trips or World Champs.

Other ideas could be dropping all management.

My point is any cut in levies will have consequences for the sport. What are the arguments for dropping the levy to 10%?

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 9 February 2009, 8:49 AM  
umm this maybe be a dumb question but whats wrong with the status quo? doesn't orienteering have more pressing problems people could be putting their efforts into solving (the fast the people think orienteering is a nerd treasure hunt for instance, or the poor retention rates of juniors?)

Show Profile  Hamish Posted: 28 February 2009, 10:24 AM  
I thought this would get a lot more discussion. Supposedly we will have to vote on this at the AGM. HB committee's immediate reaction was yes let's back it - we'll keep more money to spend in areas we want to - mapping, junior camps, sportident and keeping the sport cheap for our members. On further discussion though we realise we need NZOF and to function it needs money. Maybe it's not about how high the levy should be but where the money should be spent.
Remember HB had 330 members last year - that's quite a lot of power and we need swaying as how to vote on this.
My personal feeling is that money should be spent to encourage more people to orienteer and become members = more money for NZOF. Governments pour money into education - we shouldn't be any different. Mike Beveridge's SS Summer Sprint series could do amazing things for Auckland and NZ orienteering. Look what Geoff Morrison and others have done in HB - we regularly get 150 - 200 at our Summer series events.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 28 February 2009, 11:49 AM  
Interesting comments Hamish.

I think it should be completely disregarded - the remit that is.

We should be focussing our attention towards reducing the membership component of our levies. A reduction in these, gives the ability to reduce membership costs. Recuding membership costs gives a financial advantage to joining a club.

The more members a club has, the more people it has a direct relationship with. The more members, the greater the ability for that club to get grant money etc.

The more members the federation has, the better it looks for SPARC.

But overall, at present remember that small clubs are struggling. If the difference between a member and non-member event fee is $5. I think the cheapest club membership I've seen out there is $25 for a senior. That means it takes 5 events to pay off a membership! No wonder why no new clubs are popping up anywhere, as you have to run 5+ events just to make an incentive for people to join the club!

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 2 March 2009, 7:41 AM  
My club (Wairarapa) has trouble finding new members and always has.

Membership fees for 2009 has been set to only $10 per family (ie per address).

All financial Wairarapa Club members pay only half-price for event fees for all events run by the Wairarapa Club.

In effect, the Wairarapa club is subsidising all members.

Show Profile  HeadHoncho Posted: 2 March 2009, 3:07 PM  
I've resolved not to enter into public debate on the remit but to Hamish I'd say if you or HB would like some swaying as to how to vote, and some reaction to your comments, please contact me via NZOF email.

Show Profile  robbie Posted: 2 March 2009, 4:46 PM  
HB The major point to consider with your vote.
If nzof drop to 15%. Revenue will drop $23,000 It will also not be possable to achieve sparc requirements and nzof will lose another $22,500. Can our sport survive with only half the income.I have serious doubts

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 2 March 2009, 5:04 PM  
The other thing to consider is the remit is currently wide open as the % of the reduction of levies is not set in concrete. Its great if all clubs decide how they are going to vote before the AGM based on the reduction to 15% but what happens if/when the % being discussed is suddenly changed? How can you vote then?

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 2 March 2009, 6:34 PM  
My question is why does it have to be a %, surely a set $ figure makes more sense and easier for event organisers to budget for.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 3 March 2009, 10:36 PM  
Robbie - you make the most important point. Losing SPARC funding would kill us.

A cut from 25% to say 20% would even have huge setbacks of $10k+

A halving of membership levies, would only cost ~$7,500. Perhaps a long term strategy would be to slowly over a period of time decrease the membership levy (or as other people call it - the affiliation fee)

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 4 March 2009, 8:07 AM  
Can someone outline the SPARC funding criteria simply? Or is there a link where people can have a look at exactly how it works?

Show Profile  addison Posted: 4 March 2009, 10:39 AM  
You'll need to contact Rob Crawford Aiden. There isn't criteria for SPARC funding, hence why we are a bit nervous about it

Show Profile  addison Posted: 4 March 2009, 12:27 PM  
Bryan, so basically you are relying on subsidising your affiliation fees by running events or from reserves. Sounds good to keep your club alive - what about for potential new clubs?

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 4 March 2009, 1:03 PM  
I can only suggest what we did for my own club when it was started - dedicated person or persons doing lots of work (and creating new maps - although the maps do not have to be fancy).

When the Wairarapa club was starting, we made 5 black and white maps in the first year, 8 maps in the 2nd year (2 black and white, 6 colour), 2 colour maps in the 3rd year) - most maps required only 1 or 2 days fieldwork only - ah, if life was so simple today.

With the pool of maps available, Wairarapa was able to always keep club membership fees low, and interest of members high with new areas and get sufficient enough revenue from holding events that it has a reasonable reserve today.

1   2   3   4   5  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions