Entry Fees

We recently recieved the below letter and it got us talking. Let us know your thoughts.

"June’s star letter riled me up. My local gym and pool have reduced rates for the unemployed, and you'd like racing to as well? How about a reduction for working 40 hours a week, raising two kids, paying my dues and still training? Race prices should be equal!"

 

 

«1345

Comments

  • agree that there should be no reductions .......it would be a nightmare to organise with proof of benefits etc......and the reduction for those eligible would mean higher prices for those paying...

     everyone has different incomes and different outgoings....you enter the races that you  can afford or think are value for money......

    the biggest cost is usually fuel to get to the races to start with....

  • when I saw the other letter in june's issue I assumed it was either a joke or from a nutter and couldn't believe you'd published it, let alone made it letter of the month. glad you did though as there's nothing like a good old fashioned overreaction to brighten my day

  • I thought June's *star* letter was asking for fees to be increased with age groups, ie older runners pay more?

  • Reduced rates at the pool or gym are probably due to Local Authority subsidies.  If the LA was to subsidise race fees then far enough, but that is the decision of the LA.

  • Whether my entry fee is subsidising the cost of entry for the next person doesn't really concern me, as long as I am getting value for money myself.

    In other words, my assessment of 'value' will be based on what I get from the race, not on how what I have paid compares with someone else.

    This sort of attitude is pretty sad to see really.  It's like the withdrawal of child benefit for high earners.  a lot of those that lost it seemed more bothered that their next door neighbours got to keep it, than the fact that it was taken away from them.

    If subsidised entry fees get more people involved in running, cycling, whatever, then I think it's a good thing.

  • I don't mind giving reduced rates for off-peak, but if my gym gave reduced rates for anyone with the same mebership as I have, I'd expect to pay the reduced rate, or I'd cancel and leave, one price for all or it is unfair 

  • Pudge...if people can get the money to pay for running shoes then the entry fee isn't going to break the bank........

    if its going to be based on earnings then maybe there should be lots of different price ranges.....goes up a £1 for every £10,000 you earn........

    there are loads of very cheap LDWA for runners and Audax for cyclists.....and you do not have to race to do those sports....

    the whole organisation of it would be a nightmare....

  • Cinders wrote (see)

    I thought June's *star* letter was asking for fees to be increased with age groups, ie older runners pay more?

    it was. and also discounts for unemloyed and students. it wasn't clear what should happen with mature students though

  • maybe you should pay on the ;length of time on the course...............the longer you are out then you pay more ......might make another incentive to get a PB....image

  • Can anyone explain the justification on why older runners should pay more......was it all all ages or did pensioners get a discount or something...

    I'm confused as i have never heard anywhere that charges you more as you get older image

     

  • seren nos wrote (see)

    maybe you should pay on the ;length of time on the course...............the longer you are out then you pay more ......might make another incentive to get a PB....image

    I like this idea - great kick up the arse to get around the course quickly!

  • SN, the writer was saying how races were full of older runners and I think they wanted a discount for younger ones to encourage them but also suggesting that the older the runner, the more they pay!

  • i don't think its the entry fee that puts off younger runners.they just have better things to do on the weekends like going oput clubbing and getting pissed.........they probably pay more money for one drink in a nightclub than they would on a rcae entry

  • Gym memberships are a luxury. I can only just afford to stay a member at mine, but if I was unemployed it would be the first thing I'd be cancelling.

    It's not elitist to say that the best facilities are only available to those that can pay. I'm a member of a council-run gym, but there's better gyms well out of my reach.

    If you can't afford a gym, buy some cheap weights and some running shoes. If you can't afford race entry fees, stick to Parkrun and social running with friends. There are good value races out there, and in most cases a further discount would be to the detriment of the investment and organisation that clubs and individuals are able to put into them.

    Swimming is slightly different however, as it's not like you can leave your house in trunks and immediately go swimming. The old borough council pool I learned at had 20p entry for kids and 30p for adults in the late-80s. The local pool to me now wants £6+ a swim. Swimming genuinely has become a luxury where it was once seemingly a right.

  • seren nos wrote (see)

    Can anyone explain the justification on why older runners should pay more......was it all all ages or did pensioners get a discount or something...

    I'm confused as i have never heard anywhere that charges you more as you get older image  

    the writer of the letter claimed that the average age at races is 35, maybe 40 because younger people are priced out as organisers target lycra clad cash rich 40 plus year olds and in a few years there'll be very few under 25s racing. basically RW published a complete nonsense letter

  • thanks gatters........nothing new there then image

  • Running races are different to local authority run gyms. The latter are a business and by offering off peak discounts to unemployed/pensioners etc means the facilities are used more.
    Road races are for the most part volunteer run. A staggered array of fees would add another headache to what is already an admin heavy task.
    Pudge - as for loss of child benefit, I think the biggest gripe is that it is on one salary rather than household salary, i.e, one parent working earning 60k, no child benefit. Both parents working, earning 49k (household income 98k), full child benefit.

  • and the two person household will pay a lot less tax on their joint income than the single household.......image

  • I'm thinking of asking for a discout at my next race if I promise not to use the water station

  • It's important that everyone has access to the health benefits of exercise.  You can't really swim safely without a swimming pool. So reduced rates are an important social service for those who need it.  100% behind it.

    Gyms...  well I suppose that can be considered fairly fundamental.  And for council run gyms, I'm very happy to go with reduced rates.

    Running..  well everyone can run safely and with enjoyment without running races.  So I don't really see the rationale for subsidising them - unless you go down the route of subsiding everything in life.. and price everything based on income. Which is not practical.


  • Dustin wrote (see)

    Pudge - as for loss of child benefit, I think the biggest gripe is that it is on one salary rather than household salary, i.e, one parent working earning 60k, no child benefit. Both parents working, earning 49k (household income 98k), full child benefit.

    Exactly, you're comparing Household A with Household B, and you are focussing on the fact that it is unfair to treat one differently from the other, almost ingnoring the fact that it was right to take it away from Household A in the first place.

    Just because there isn't an economical way for the govt to also take it off Household B, doesn't make it any less 'right' to take it off Household A.

    I agree it is a shambles, but it is what it is.

  • ^ Exactly what RW said.  Competitive racing is hardly a necessity for getting people healthy and active (and besides, there's parkrun which is free!)  I'm happy to see reduced membership fees for running clubs, on a par with subsidised gym membership fees.

  • Pudge wrote (see)

    Whether my entry fee is subsidising the cost of entry for the next person doesn't really concern me, as long as I am getting value for money myself.

    In other words, my assessment of 'value' will be based on what I get from the race, not on how what I have paid compares with someone else. This sort of attitude is pretty sad to see really.  It's like the withdrawal of child benefit for high earners.  a lot of those that lost it seemed more bothered that their next door neighbours got to keep it, than the fact that it was taken away from them. If subsidised entry fees get more people involved in running, cycling, whatever, then I think it's a good thing.

    Couldn't agree more. Despite what most people seem to think, living on benefits in this country - and especially in London - is no bed of roses. It might make for more bureaucracy and therefore difficult to do without incurring more cost, but I don't disagree with the principle. I haven't seen the original letter, but as an older runner (ahem) I'd prefer not to have to pay more than the younger among you, of course...

  • pffffft - next thing you know is that airlines will charge for being overweight......

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    oh - hang on......image

  • gatters wrote (see)

     

    the writer of the letter claimed that the average age at races is 35, maybe 40 because younger people are priced out as organisers target lycra clad cash rich 40 plus year olds and in a few years there'll be very few under 25s racing. basically RW published a complete nonsense letter

    Are you sure though?  Do you know the stats? (I don't)

    For example, what was the average age people running the Brighton marathon.   I can definitely imagine that it was over 35...  and it sounds plausible that charging 60-70quid entry is off-putting for many younger people.

    It might not be true of all races, but I'm not sure you can call it nonsense.

  • Pudge, not saying it was wrong to take it away from household A in the first place but I suspect if any other tax was handled in a similar way it would also be deemed unfair. I also suspect (well actually I know) that if the wage earner in household A lost their job, they would be asked about earnings of spouse before benefits were paid in full. So household income can be looked at.
    But yes, it is what it is.

  • Young people are probably having too much fun to run marathons - I don't think that's a problem really ? If you look at a city centre at midnight on a Saturday you'll find a lot of youngsters having nights out. I'd reckon you'd spend more money there than you would on most race entries.
  • Dustin wrote (see)

    Running races are different to local authority run gyms. The latter are a business and by offering off peak discounts to unemployed/pensioners etc means the facilities are used more.
    Road races are for the most part volunteer run. A staggered array of fees would add another headache to what is already an admin heavy task.
    Pudge - as for loss of child benefit, I think the biggest gripe is that it is on one salary rather than household salary, i.e, one parent working earning 60k, no child benefit. Both parents working, earning 49k (household income 98k), full child benefit.

    Don't get me started........image

     

  • As someone IN household A I object to being told by people that my kids don't deserve child benefit but other people's do. If anything, the utterly OBSCENE amount of tax Mr LB forks out every month means that Kyle fodder parents can continue to overpopulate this country with as many little buggers as they choose knowing full well we can't stop them and we won't let them starve.

    Let's do away with child benefit altogether. It was brought in to encourage a post war population to reproduce. We hardly need to encourage folk now. 500 babies are born every day in this country more than people are passing away.

    My parents spent it on fags and booze. Many still do. It's a bloody farce.

  • The original letter writer is assuming that the cost of entry is the only thing stopping young people entering races, maybe they've just got better things to do? image 

«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.