 Poster: A snowHead
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| .. which can only be done by going to primary sources and presenting the observations as fact/quotes/documentary evidence. |
This is something you don't seem to have bothered with. So why don't you start by giving us the full facts of the other cases you deem to be relevant? You do have some fact/quotes/documentary evidence, I assume?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| Club that in its heyday published some of the most important information in the ski world, |
that wouldn't by chance be a reference to your time as a journalist for the club mag would it? 
Still waiting for an answer to my question btw... If you are going to take a polemic stance, it would be nice for everyone to know where you are coming from.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 20-01-09 18:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
stoatsbrother, no you'd want to go back to the earlier decades - the 1900s to the 1950s. Analysis of ski technique, ski equipment, ski racing and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| If you are going to take a polemic stance ... |
What's a polemic stance? (seriously)
Does this involve a ski polem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
David Goldsmith, the world has moved on - and we cannot go back. Sorry old chap. Anyway - that came as part of a package with skiing as an upper-class pursuit.
I presume that you have an archive of this quality information into which you dip for your string-based-safety-solutions? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
| What's a polemic stance? (seriously) |
I am sure it can be enhanced by a decent bootfitter...
How about "campaigning stance"?
And then how about answering the question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S'funny. While you guys have been arguing the USA has sworn in a new President. Obviously far less important than the SCGB's guiding issues but though it worth marking the occasion on this epic thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I understand. stoatsbrother has confused me with President Obama and his polemic stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
Why don't you tell us if there is any measure - short of reps having the IAFGM (or whatever it is) - which would make you happy about them leading members off-piste?
|
Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. Any training and qualification recognised as equivalent to that which others have to earn internationally (as an instructor or guide) is fine by me, in terms of leading skiers off-piste.
This idea that reps could take people within view or quick access of the piste strikes me as inviting other risks. Some terrain local to the piste could well be more dangerous than more remote stuff, but tempting to lead people into if this rule is applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thing is, you all missed Obama's speech and I swear he said something like... "there's no such thing as a little bit off-piste" but I could have been confused by his stance; it was very polemic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller, there you go - wasting your time listening to trivial speeches...
David Goldsmith, I refer you to the answer Arno gave earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| Any training and qualification recognised as equivalent to that which others have to earn internationally (as an instructor or guide) is fine by me, in terms of leading skiers off-piste. |
So whose job would it be to do the recognition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about you make a suggestion. I'm cooking dinner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
David Goldsmith, you two having dinner now? How nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| How about you make a suggestion. I'm cooking dinner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
Bode Swiller, there you go - wasting your time listening to trivial speeches...
David Goldsmith, I refer you to the answer Arno gave earlier. |
Which did not mean what you and PJSki appear to want it to mean.
The fact that the training they undergo "looks similar" to one module required of BASI instructors before they take pupils off-piste does not mean that it is "recognised as equivalent to that which others have to earn internationally".
If it was exactly the same, then it would probably be recognised as "equivalent". But it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
alex_heney, looks like the insurance company recognises it. So it seems we will now have a few hair splitting pages about whether David is happy that the insurers are happy or not.
I have a sneaking suspicion he won't be able to agree with the insurance company's view though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
More primary source data was requested. Here's a taste:
Another relevant aspect of the repping service is the conversion rate of those non-members who ski with reps and become members, or those who are simply recruited in the resorts by the reps. To skiers there is the advantage that by joining in the mountains the remainder of the season is free, with a full year's membership to follow (as I understand it, this offer is ongoing). The following data is sourced from the Club's annual reports:
Season 1992-3
Cost of ski/resort operations: £72k
Number of people who skied with reps: c.7000 (as stated) (members and non-members)
Number of new member recruits by reps: 989
Number of rep resorts: 33
Season 2007-8
Cost of ski/resort operations: £275k
Number of people who skied with reps: 6652
Number of new member recruits by reps: 320
Number of rep resorts: 37? (37 is the current figure for 2008-9)
Thus, the cost of repping has almost quadrupled during a period of substantial reductions in airfares. The number of rep resorts has increased by approximately 10% in that time. The recruitment of new members has, however, declined to one-third of the original figure.
[Context: Of course, a dramatic change since 1992 has been the emergence and dominance of the internet: 2887 members joined on-line last year: more than 9 times the rep recruitment figure, despite the free months' membership deal not provided to online joiners]
Far be it for me to suggest that reps are writing themselves out of the script, but some very convincing evidence is needed that the £275k costs and legal exposure are worth it in the end. The members who do not ski with reps in any particular year (over 80%) effectively cross-subsidise the service, because the £55 sub is the same, whether one skis with reps or one doesn't.
Have I unfairly interpreted/analysed the data?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
<snip>
Have I unfairly interpreted/analysed the data? |
Not as such, but you appear to be basing your analysis mainly on whether the cost of the reps is justified by the return they generate, and that is not their primary function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, and there is also the growth in skier numbers between 1993 and 2007 (about 30%). You would expect more people skiing with reps and greater recruitment just on the basis of growth in the market. Someone is bound to ask you for all the data inbetween those snap-shot years though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
alex_heney, yes I agree with you there. Nothing wrong with the data - which wasn't ask for - but the analysis look decidedly dodgy indeed.
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| Have I unfairly interpreted/analysed the data? |
Yes, but this data is off topic. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner and now you're flooding this thread with other issues. So let's go back to what I considered to be your 3 main points. They each have a logical counter-argument. So why don't you deal with those, instead of blowing smoke?
Smoking in public has been banned and you don't have a permit to sell red herrings in this thread.
Just to remind you, this was the data that was actually requested:
| Quote: |
| So why don't you start by giving us the full facts of the other cases you deem to be relevant? You do have some fact/quotes/documentary evidence, I assume? |
Not any old data, but data pertaining to what you were actually posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, and there is also the growth in skier numbers between 1993 and 2007 (about 30%). You would expect more people skiing with reps and greater recruitment just on the basis of growth in the market. Someone is bound to ask you for all the data inbetween those snap-shot years though. |
Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten about all the people joining through the website. I should imagine a high proportion of those join with the reps as one of their primary reasons. Obviously people joining online don't get the offer David mentions, but they do get access to the discounts straight away.
I'm afraid David's assertions are misleading and based on a false premise. Where, for example, is his proof that air travel is cheaper? It is if you fly on Wednesday with no luggage. But the cost for skiers travailing at the weekend seems to have gone up from my perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
I'm afraid David's assertions are misleading and based on a false premise. Where, for example, is his proof that air travel is cheaper? It is if you fly on Wednesday with no luggage. But the cost for skiers travailing at the weekend seems to have gone up from my perspective. |
Since 1993?
I don't think so. Budget airlines flying to Europe didn't really exist then (EasyJet were incorporated 1995, Ryan Air existed as an Irish airline not a lot cheaper than major UK airlines iniitaily, and had only just really switched to the budget model at around that time).
Most flights to Europe in 1993 would cost more in £ than equivalent budget flights would now, and then you have to take inflation into account too.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 21-01-09 12:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
alex_heney, If you have access to the SCGB forum archives - you will see - if you can be bothered to go 2 years back - that we have done all of this in some detail,and that similar figures have been produced before, and that it has been pointed out that accounting methods have varied, record keeping methods have changed, ways of skiers joining have diversified etc etc...
But that really isn't the point. Starting a nit-picking line-by-line analysis of the rather irrelevant figures that David throws up, obscures the way that his agenda here appears to be that SCGB reps should not guide off-piste unless they have formal qualifications equivalent for the local ski school teachers on the same terrain (Lets leave aside Glaciated terrain - which in Europe requires a guide - and I hope no SCGB rep would lead on that...).
The trouble is - that isn't where it would stop. I suspect that he would then point out - correctly - that the Piste can also be a dangerous place to be - and we will be off again trying to defend reps leading On-piste. 
I suspect I am not the only person who feels he has a grudge against reps and a rather bizarre notion of what the club should be - based on a perspective which really belongs to 30-50 years ago.
A pattern many of us believe we have seen over the years is a selective willingness on David's part to answer questions. For instance - has anyone seen an answer to my question about how he thinks skiers should travel to Europe yet? [ie plane or nuclear powerered train?]. We know he has not been as active skiing as formerly, and it is easy for someone not exposed to temptation to be virtuous and to tell others how to live... He also does tend IMO to try and change the argument when he realises he is beaten on one front.
I think in this issue - as in others [T&Cs, snowHeads owner ship etc] - there is not much point engaging in the debate with David - or perhaps equally with PJSki, me and RJP amongst others - our view is unlikely to change. We have already looked at the issues here in some detail. The proper place for this discussion is now amongst the members on their forum - all of whom (except one) can discuss it there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="alex_heney"]
| PJSki wrote: |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
I'm afraid David's assertions are misleading and based on a false premise. Where, for example, is his proof that air travel is cheaper? It is if you fly on Wednesday with no luggage. But the cost for skiers travailing at the weekend seems to have gone up from my perspective. |
|
errr... no I didn't write that. Get it right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten about all the people joining through the website |
Absolutely, then why aren't there many more skiing with reps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
I suspect I am not the only person who feels he has a grudge against reps and a rather bizarre notion of what the club should be - based on a perspective which really belongs to 30-50 years ago. |
I have no grudge against reps whatsoever. These are all people who have invested their valuable time and hard-earned money in undertaking the training, and then providing their services to the membership on a voluntary basis. I'd be a fool to harbour any grudge against any rep or reps collectively.
But a situation has arisen in which the Club's allocation of resources appears to be skewed in favour of a service which is not delivering the vital membership recruitment it was originally intended to provide. Money is a scarce resource.
Who controls the allocation of resources? The budget is determined by the Club's elected Council, comprising a significant proportion of reps. One needs to keep a eye on this in relation to the SCGB's statement of corporate governance (3.3.1.: third bullet point)
| Quote: |
| Council comprises independent non-executive members and no group dominates decision making |
The end of that sentence is extremely important. The Club exists to serve the general interests of its membership, and that is why no group must dominate decision making. Is the Council allocating the resources objectively, by applying effective budgetary control, or is the repping service benefiting from a blank chequebook?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
achilles, perhaps your membership of the Castle Hill Private Gentlemen's Club has led you to form those views.
I seem to recall that you were intrigued to have something 'leaked' from the SCGB recently - events at the AGM? - or is my memory faulty?
Many people share your status as 'ex-SCGB' and are probably interested to know how the Club is getting on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
David Goldsmith, however membership numbers seem to be showing any upwards trend...
Still no answer to my question about preferred modes of travel eh? Rather proves my point... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
David Goldsmith, I was interested to see if a small-interest group could take over a club against the wishes of its current elected committee/council. The rules are usually written in such a way that that is most unlikely (they are so in the SCGB and the CHC). But the gang of 4 felt they had enough momentum behind them to have a pop. As I have a direct interest in how clubs generally are run (I am on the committee of the CHC) I was of course intrigued about that aspect of the SCGB AGM. But I don't have an interest in the details of how the SCGB goes about its business. I find it hard to imagine most here would.
There was also the matter of the gang of 4 wishing to the rules for reps reverting to a pre-Verbier-accident situation. As Any of us could ski with a SCGB rep for a day, that was of general interest - but that is not what you are chuntering about now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
stoatsbrother, as David Goldsmith would know if he were still skiing in Switzerland, travelling all the way there by train is not that easy, anyway. But we drift OT. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
I'm afraid David's assertions are misleading and based on a false premise. Where, for example, is his proof that air travel is cheaper? It is if you fly on Wednesday with no luggage. But the cost for skiers travailing at the weekend seems to have gone up from my perspective. |
Since 1993?
I don't think so. Budget airlines flying to Europe didn't really exist then (EasyJet were incorporated 1995, Ryan Air existed as an Irish airline not a lot cheaper than major UK airlines iniitaily, and had only just really switched to the budget model at around that time).
Most flights to Europe in 1993 would cost more in £ than equivalent budget flights would now, and then you have to take inflation into account too. |
Flying Gatwick to Geneva this Saturday, with 23kg baggage and one pair of ski is costing me £360.00 return. What would it have cost in 1993?
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 21-01-09 12:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
David Goldsmith, a summery of your points as I see them:
1. Reps not trained to a high enough standard to lead off-piste.
In fact they are trained to BASI standard.
2. Fear of what the press might say.
Rather flimsy reason.
3. Fear of cost of litigation.
Covered by insurance.
Is there anything more? Because all your points have been blown out of the water. |
Putting David's off topic rant to one side, let's go back to these points.
1. trained at a high enough standard to get insurance cover.
2. nothing to fear but fear itself.
3. Seems to be a very limited liability, even for any criminal proceedings.
BTW, David, sorry for calling you a tw@at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
PJSki, you're making a mess of the thread. You've attributed a quote above to Bode Swiller, when in fact the words are your own.
You've told us it's costing you £360 to fly to Geneva. So what? The Ski Club pays for rep flights according to what they cost, with a cap that is a fraction of the figure you've quoted.
Then you've trotted out the claim (repeated from yesterday) that reps "... are trained to BASI standard". The whole point about being a ski instructor is that one is trained to teach ski technique, observe the technique of pupils and improve or correct it. You may then take a module which extends your professional expertise to taking groups off-piste, lead them into more remote terrain and teach them how to ski more challenging snow conditions. I remain unconvinced that a rep, who is not trained to instruct or assess ski technique, can be adequately qualified to lead groups into trickier snow conditions on the strength of a few days' work in Tignes. However, this type of training would adequately equip a good skier to lead groups on controlled pisted runs.
Quoting from the Club's 'Become a Rep' page - http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/reps/becomearep/repscourse.asp :
| Quote: |
| "Price includes" ... "Performance clinic - 3 half-days of ski/board technique instruction by BASI Trainers" ... "Further training by top Mountain Guides & BASI Instructors" [the duration of this training unspecified] ... "A qualified rep will demonstrate the following skills" ... "On-snow leading: Have the ability to lead groups of all standards competently and sensitively, on and off piste and in all conditions." ... "Technique: Demonstrate sound and safe technique in all conditions" |
I've obviously extracted and summarised there, and recommend that the link above is studied in full. I don't wish to diminish the efforts and input provided on the course, but this is a tiny fraction of what an instructor or guide would be put through. The suggestion is that a rep could - for example - lead groups in breakable crust and demonstrate sound technique in breakable crust.
Now ... in the days when the SCGB qualified ski technique on a bronze-silver-gold scale, with tests, the 'gold standard' skiers were tested on their ability to ski all conditions, including breakable crust. In the early 1960s, as Scottish skiing and package skiing boomed, the need for a British ski instructors training organisation emerged. Sadly, the Ski Club did not (unlike the Royal Yachting Association) get to grips with instructor training.
My impression today is that the highest standards of ski technique are not being aspired to.
Again, that's not to diminish what reps do, but we should be under no illusions as to what they should sensibly do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ... a service which is not delivering the vital membership recruitment it was originally intended to provide. |
Is that what they're there for? As an ex-member (coincidentally recruited by a rep in Avoriaz) I thought they were (primarily) a service for members. We let our membership lapse when the kids came along but will re-join next time we're off to a rep resort. Essentially, while the mag and additional website features are all well and good, we can get equivalent discounts through other routes and it's the repping service that really makes it worthwhile for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
I'm afraid David's assertions are misleading and based on a false premise. Where, for example, is his proof that air travel is cheaper? It is if you fly on Wednesday with no luggage. But the cost for skiers travailing at the weekend seems to have gone up from my perspective. |
|
errr... no I didn't write that. Get it right. |
Corrected.
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Higs wrote: |
| Is that what they're there for? |
Reps are certainly in resorts to recruit new members. When the scheme was devised there were, of course, no ski shows and no internet. There were no ski magazines in newsagents and few ways to publicise the Club other than newspapers etc. The only places that skiers congregated were their chosen resorts or some up-market shops in the UK that traded in skiwear and equipment.
So, the resorts chosen by British skiers were the obvious places to recruit members to a Ski Club of Great Britain.
What's changed? Not a massive amount, essentially.
British skiers still congregate in concentrated places. They have loads of cash to splash about, because they're on holiday. They are open to suggestions as to how to spend it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
David Goldsmith, as you very well know - the numbers in the reports as recruited by reps does not include those who later join via the internet because of reps. This is exactly the kind of interpretation that PJSki was talking about... You will also know from the MRI data that the reps scored highly as a reason for continued membership, with the mag and forum being much less a factor.
So once again you are:
1) failing to answer a simple polite question about how you feel snowHeads should travel to the slopes.
2) deflecting the argument away when you are losing
3) displaying what appears to me to be a systematic anti-rep stance which has been evident for years, espescially on the SCGB forum
Times have changed, the world has moved on. Why can't you ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stopped being a member of the Ski Club many years ago. I'm well aware of what it offers and the only thing which would tempt me to join is the very excellent guiding service provided by one of the reps in Les Arcs (snowcrazy). Until I do join I'll consider this thread, and my worthless contribution to it, a waste of snowHead electrons. Isn't there a better place to discuss how the Ski Club should be run?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
