Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
ARC or UK:A
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
In the case of my club, we have an EGM tonight to decide which organisation we affiliate to. We could sit on the fence and affiliate to both, and see how things pan out over the next several months, but I detect a shift of opinion over recent weeks towards ARC only affilaition. We have about 170 adult members and stage 5 races per year plus one for our local cross country league. We have not been affilaited to SEAA for track & field - only road, cross country & fell running. We are also affiliated to BTA and are represented on BARR. If we opt for ARC-only affilaition, it could have some interesting repercussions amongst the local running fraternity.
I'm pleased to say my club is now a member of ARC i wish them well.
The thing that doesn't seem to have been grasped or understood by the higher echelons of the governance is that running can be all things to all people and you can't force all runners to want the same things from their freedom to be able to run. there are no definitive boundaries from the runner who goes out and runs around the block to keep fit to the elite athlete, all those in between pick and choose what elements to embrace, reject, try out, how much to spend on it (time & money), or how little, or even organise and be involved in it and that's part of the beauty of this wonderful pastime. Now somebody is trying to make the running community fit a template they have designed to suit some people but not all people as perhaps it did before (?), maybe as billy says 'UKA/EA messed about with something that was not broken'.
Good to see you still join the forum from time to time.
I expect you already know, but we have affiliated to both this year. Of the rest I know that AVR have gone with ARC (or possibly both?) & Honiton have gone with EA. It would be quite interesting to have a county wide list of affiliations.
Enjoy your EGM!
I've now got the task as membership secretary of writing to each & every member & asking if they wish to be recorded as a competing member, and if so, do they consent to me forwarding their personal details on to EA. I've no idea how many will consent, even though the club will pay their £3 individual affiliation fee this year. We'll decide about next year's £5 in February.
We are also waiting to see what happens in the local cross country league, where the main organising club have also hedged their bets with both organisations.
Thanks for the link. By AVR I meant Axe Valley, home of The Grizzly.
Dunnarunner
Very similar outcome to our AGM; we are also paying the £3 runner's affiliation fee this year. Next year it will be optional with runners to pay it in addition to their subs if they want to.
RRLG Proposal
Quite a dramatic change of tack, apart from the first line no real explanation as to why things have changed. The last paragraph in the blue panel is interesting, which members are being replaced and why? Have they already stood down?
If this plan had been proposed right at the start how would we all have reacted then?
Is there a recognition (by UKA / EA) that the original proposals were ill conceived?
The proposals increase bureaucracy and the regulation of road races and this is unwelcome. The switch of fees from unattached levies to race licences was anticipated and ARC cannot comment on these until the level of charges which will be applied is known.
ARC, run by volunteers, has very low costs and intends to remain competitive on all fronts in the future."
Last event I organised had 120 runners, 6 unattached, Cost to the club for the permit £0.
So how much is the new permit going to cost absed on a sliding scale? potential revenue was £12.
How are they going to administer the cost? you don't know up front howmany runners you will have.
Seems like another cynical scheme to me to appear to give with one hand, and take MUCH more with another.
Well spleen vented, I'll just retire to a dark room with the dogs and we shall all go for a virtual run
so this will lead to yet another increase in entry fees for most races.
Great step forward.
Do race have to charge more for non-affiliated runners?
Frequently the charge is the same for entries on the day, so as wellas paying the £1.00 or so for entry on the day I have paid an extra £2.00 as well
Under the present system Race Organisers have to pay UKA £2 for every unaffiliated runner who enters their race. Not unreasonably, they tend to pass this cost on to those unaffliated runners. It is not compulsory to do so, although clearly the money has to come from somewhere.
Under the proposed system, race organisers will still have the opportunity to charge unaffiliated runners extra. It doesn't look as though they have to. As the majority of races are run by running clubs, I expect they will maintain differential pricing in favour of running club members.
Similarly with charging extra for entries on the day. Races don't have to do this, but it makes administrative sense to encourage advance entries.
Been looking at the figures for a large west country half marathon
15,000 entries, say 60% not club members, money handed over £18,000 in non affliated charges under the old scheme.
9,500 finishers, money handed over £3,800 handed over in total charges.
This is a big drop in income for EA and reduces the amount of money that can be put back into the regions.
Or will the organisors have to pass on the full £2.00 for non affiliated entrants who do not take part?
Musketeer: If the £2 differential disappears it's usually because the organisers want to make things as simple and swift as possible - if you've got 300 people entering in a 30-minute period (it's happened to me!) then the last thing some feel they need is differentiated pricing. So they round the price UP and everyone, affiliated and unaffiliated alike, pays the highest price. Not a practice I agree with particularly but I can understand why it's done. "200 minutes" has it right when he says that organisers want to encourage advance entries rather than entries on the day, we have managed to do without EOTD for two years now in the Yateleys and it's much easier.
........ you only think the problem is with EA?!! ;-)
More propaganda from an organisation of 80 clubs, many of whom I suspect have dual affiliation. Let's wait until say Christmas before you repeat that.
Tell you what if Andy say's anything else you don't like why not 'offer him outside'? ;-)
Seriously though, you have to admit that the interim solution for a lot of clubs seems to be 'sitting on the fence', joining both organisations without commiting fully to EA and who can blame them after all a large majority of the running community don't really fully understand (and don't want to understand**) the politics of the situation.
** Most of us just want to enjoy running, we get enough 'politics' at work.
I'm quite happy to debate the issues here, down the pub, or in email. Unlike some, I don't use a pseudonym and am quite happy that people know who I am.
This topic now has 510 entries, so I guess politics remains quite popular, really.
Quite so, this really is one of the more interesting threads!
Reading back on my posts, I realise I may come over as rather anti-EA. This isn't really my position, I'd much rather they got it right - but they keep frustrating me with inspired acts of lunacy...