Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Unattached vs Club
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
So this is what I understand so far -
UKnetrunner - £35 - Club vest - insurance (racing & training) - UKA affiliated - also gets club places for VLM
realbuzz - £12.50 - UKA affiliated - unclear about insurance - no club places for VLM
Road runners club - £12.50 - UKA affiliated - not clear about innsurance or club places for VLM
Anyone want to fill me in on the blanks?
UKnetrunner is £20 in subsequent years - the extra in the first year pays for a club vest apparently.
realbuzz is £12.95
afjt - It's not that important, just one of the little things that may sway judgement. Don't think it will sway me to the tune of £35 though........Roadrunnerclub covers you for training aswell. Didn't like the look of realbuzz really.
Roadrunners it is.
I don't really buy the idea that non-club runners are somehow selfish. I would reckon from what I've seen that the majority of club-registered runners are just as uninterested in volunteering and helping out as those who are unattached, and all they contribute is their money (which is something, I guess). Running clubs end up working like almost any other voluntary organisation: those who run them are, for better or worse, self-selected. My experience so far is that they are run from the top and down to the bottom by people who do it for altruistic reasons - they tend to love running and want to pass some of that love on. That doesn't stop it being a little cliquey in its own way, though my own club has been very welcoming. It's the way of these things, again for good or worse, that in the end only a small number of people get involved with the nuts and bolts. My view is that the clubs are a good thing, and people should join if they want to, but we shouldn't label people as 'selfish' if they don't want to. There might be many reasons for not joining: I'm lucky in London to have a great many clubs to choose from, and the one I joined has more volunteers than most and thus more training sessions; I understand from what Danowat says, for example, that there's no club close enough to where he lives to make joining a useful thing to do. Fair enough. In many ways, running is a solitary sport, which makes the 'club' a somewhat quixotic idea. Live and let live is what i say.
Next time Danowat or Yorkshire Rob turn out for a race organised by a running club, just reflect that the organisers and marshals are there because they are runners, and putting something back into the sport.
Our club puts on 3 events a year. We don't make any significant profit, just enough to cover our expenses and if there is enough surplus a charity donation.
We don't make any more out of the £2 levy, that gets passed straight on to EA
So the next time when you have the choice of entering a club organised 10k for £8- £10 or some big city event with an £30 entry fee, that if WE didn't put the effort in you would have to fork out the £30.
.
Blah blah.
Which club are you in?, I'll make an effort to avoid the races they organise in the future, and stick with ones that appreciate ALL runners that make the effort to pay, and run in their events.
WADR, Mak's friend, you're either missing, or not wishing to take the point that if we are unaffiliated runners, it is not because we won't join a club, it's that we can't - and for the reasons stated.
Equally, as has been stated above, it if weren't for the number of unaffiliated runners, then I guess that quite a few club races would not take place, there would be insufficient numbers to warrant the event.
Finally, a point which you seem to have overlooked. If the people responsible for organising the races did not want us - the great, unwashed, unaffliliated runners - then all they would have to do is decline our entry when we apply.
Anyone can join a club if they want. Most clubs are happy to have members who do not come to club nights.
You seem to be missing the point I am trying to make that club members are those that put the effort into putting on small club races, and keep events going that otherwise would not exist.
What a silly threat Danowat. Don't be so childish.
Its not a threat, and its neither childish, what would be to point on unattached runners spending money on events run by a club that doesn't want them to enter?.
If you let us know the name of the club, then we don't have to have unattached runners demeaning their races.
What a load of sh*te!
I am unattached and volunteer at plenty of races, and I know lots of other people who are unattached who do the same.
Did I say unattached runners demean races? I don't think so.
Seems like I've hit a raw nerve with you. Guilt maybe? or just throwing your toys out of the pram?
No, you said they are "selfish"
Toys still firmly in the pram, just think that people talking BS should be called out on it.
totally with you there Mak's friend.
It seems danowat has got the wrong end of the stick, being argumentatvie or is just plane stooopid.
Yeah, stoopid and selfish, thats me
I just find it amazing that anyone who is unattached should be branded as selfish.
Some touchy stuff here.
As a club member for a few years I can fairly confidently say there are ups and downs. Once you start giving your time and expertise (in whatever area, be it attending meetings, marshalling or orgainsing social activities) others start to expect it and give a little less themselves. And the silent majority are usually appreciative but there is always one or two vocal velociraptors who like to tear a strip off anyone who dares stick their head over the top and advocate a bit of change.
The common thread should be a love of running, racing and maybe socialising. Not all runners want to run to someone elses regime ( and not all runners like to be told at a club run race that they cannot wear ipods) but why should they then finanically be penalised for entering dozens of race a year - your occassional fun runner or GNR one off doesn't mind spending £30 a pop on a half marathon but do that 12 times a year and it mounts up.
But there really is no excuse for the running community to turn in upon itself in any sort of angry manner because we have others to focus our energies on such as insurers, councils, the police, car drivers, horse riders, white van man, expensive trainers manufacturers and so on.
Today's unattached runner may be tomorrow's club runner - but you have to prove that the club is worth a commitment to. Which means rights and responsibilities on both sides.
Stow the bickering and get your trainers on.
Well Farnie and his mates prove the exception to the rule.
Have you ever helped at a race Danowat? If you have then I'll take it all back.
why am I the exception to the rule?
If unattached people don't help out with your races, maybe it is something you should address? Maybe you would end up with more members, rather than berating those who are unattached and probably don't know how to help?
<------and I am not a he
No, I haven't, and I'd bet that the majority of runners, attached or otherwise, haven't either.
Seriously, I really didn't realise there was a pre-requesite of having to help out at races to run in them, likewise, I really didn't realise that people took such a dim view on unattached runners.
You learn something new everyday I guess.
I don't understand your view on unattached runners MF.
As has been pointed out at the start of this thread, a lot of runners in races are unattached. WIthout them, the races would have far fewer people taking part. Why is that a good thing?
I DO belong to a club, indeed I'm the secretary. But I choose, as do all our members, not to be personally affiliated to England Athletics.
So we continue to pay the £2 extra to enter races, because we don't like having to provide all our personal data to EA, just to be on yet another database (held by an extremely inefficient organisation).
So where do we stand in your view of unattached runners?
(oh, and we don't organise a race our selves, but we do marshal at other clubs' races sometimes.)
I've never said that unattached runners should not be able to run in races, and I may be guilty of a gross generalisation, but my basic point is that some runners (and mostly unattached) participate in races, yet do nothing beyond that to further running as a sport.
I may have tarred some unattached runners with the wrong brush, but my basic point is that you should put back into the sport that which you take out.
My defintion of selfish - take, don't give. Thats it. That's what my first post said. Any further interpretation has been a mis-interpretation, unless you want to be argumentative of course.
If others take issue of my view then its tough
Surely though, the unattached runners are 'giving back' in terms of their entry fees? Just as much as attached runners who don't help out at races?
There are plenty of affiliated club runners who never do anything beyond turning up at races and running.
easy peeezy,
ask for help wherever it is that people sign up, on any race info
"are your friends/family coming to watch, why not ask them to marshall" etc...
Or give people the opportunity to help if they can't run it for whatever reason.
I am supposed to be running the Stockport 10 (and I am trying very hard to stay fit enough to while injured) but if I can't then I will offer to marshall (and I am not a member of their club, they are just lovely people)
Also there is normally thread started on here about races, a call to arms from someone on one of those threads is sure to attract people
for example here http://www.fun2tri.co.uk/cheshire-new/race%20day%20info.htm on the race day info...
schimples