 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I was rather surprised at the take up figures for ski leaders - 40% on average
|
If I was a member, Id question how this figure is arrived at. Just gut feeling tells me it's either BS or misleading. But I'm not a member, they made that choice for me 9 years and 9 months ago, so I don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The inclusion of 18-24 year-olds (the previous cut-off to adult membership was correctly 18 years) had the effect of apparently boosting the SCGB's gross membership by 5000-7000. I think this was really why it was done - simply to bump up the numbers and make the demographics look more acceptable to advertisers. Advertisers like to know that the Club has youth on its side.
But if a 18-24 year-old son or daughter is out of the household unit - studying elsewhere, or otherwise living independently (i.e. the majority) then that person is essentially a non-participant, not reading the Club magazine and not engaged. I know of no other national membership organisation which defines a person in that age group as a family member.
In its 2012 annual report, the SCGB mysteriously omitted the number of subscription payers - "paying units". That's the truest membership figure - the most important statistic there is - which has been reported for decades (if not ever). Someone's monkeying around with the figures - the SCGB has recently claimed "34,000 members" and "over 30,000 members" at the same time, on different pages of skiclub.co.uk.
My colleague Clouseau now has the 2013 SCGB annual report. I have provided him with a pocket calculator and we expect to start analysing the 'state of the Skeeb' shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
40% takeup does not surprise me for ski leaders, they take non members around for free for one day but if those people want to do a second day they have to join, not sure if the resort join up discount still applies, there also used to be a resort workers discount, I suspect that many of these people only join for a single year and do not renew there membership which would go a long way to explaining the static membership figures
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
How many resort workers realistically would be seen dead skiing in a SCGB rep posse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
fatbob, They used to get quite a good takeup from first time resort workers
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Forgot to mention 'The Verbier Incident' is also over. From the lady who enquired after the 'expelled member':-
''It was great to hear, last night at the SCGB AGM, that the appeal by the authorities has failed. The SCGB rep has been completely cleared of the charge against her ( ? negligent homicide?), her actions were vindicated, she had taken the right and necessary steps.
This had been hanging over the rep. concerned since 2007 (?) but she has been supported by Council and management in her defence and so this must be a great weight off everyone's shoulders.''
Cannot argue with that. It also means further legal costs are not an issue.
Plus leaders getting stopped by French cops in Les Arcs in particular(two years on the trot) The ski leaders will now carry a written justification in French and English to present to officials in such cases. Our friend down the front thought it was due to a former SCGB leader living in Les Arcs and friendly with the head of police -as if the club did not have enough on its plate with CG.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Jones,
| Quote: |
Forgot to mention 'The Verbier Incident' is also over. From the lady who enquired after the 'expelled member':-
''It was great to hear, last night at the SCGB AGM, that the appeal by the authorities has failed. The SCGB rep has been completely cleared of the charge against her ( ? negligent homicide?), her actions were vindicated, she had taken the right and necessary steps.
This had been hanging over the rep. concerned since 2007 (?) but she has been supported by Council and management in her defence and so this must be a great weight off everyone's shoulders.''
Cannot argue with that. It also means further legal costs are not an issue.
Plus leaders getting stopped by French cops in Les Arcs in particular(two years on the trot) The ski leaders will now carry a written justification in French and English to present to officials in such cases. Our friend down the front thought it was due to a former SCGB leader living in Les Arcs and friendly with the head of police -as if the club did not have enough on its plate with CG.....
|
Wow! I bet that doesn't get into the minutes!!
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 22-11-13 13:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ It would all be on audio tape though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
The ski leaders will now carry a written justification in French and English to present to officials in such cases
|
"Officer, I have in my hand a piece of paper which...wait...WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT TRUNCHEON! ARRGH! THE PAPER - IT DOES NOTHING!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard_Sideways, paper wipes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Masque, 500 euro notes might work...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
500 euro notes are most commonly traded in London, but for laundering in relation to a different kind of "fluffy white powder" (apparently)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Our friend down the front thought it was due to a former SCGB leader living in Les Arcs and friendly with the head of police - |
Another one to add to the conspiracy theories Mr Swiller!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| George Jones wrote: |
Plus leaders getting stopped by French cops in Les Arcs in particular(two years on the trot) The ski leaders will now carry a written justification in French and English to present to officials in such cases.
|
Good stuff. Now, has anyone got a photocopier so we can get the TO guides back out there doing a bit of guiding too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
You could draw up your own version, or ask the cycling organisation that was consulted.
Snow sports as practiced by SCGB members being a 'leisure activity' rather than a sport seemed to be a key issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Arctic Roll wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Our friend down the front thought it was due to a former SCGB leader living in Les Arcs and friendly with the head of police - |
Another one to add to the conspiracy theories Mr Swiller! |
Hmmm. Deep deep in this forum somewhere are pieces of a jigsaw. An "incident" in Les Arcs going back maybe 5-6 years has been alluded to on a few occasions. And I'd like to know where they all were the night Princess Di died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
SCGB 2013 Annual Report: first nibble
Clouseau has now been in touch. It appears that the membership "paying units" (i.e. number of subscriptions bought) has again been omitted from the annual report. That's the second year running!
The only membership number quoted is the 'gross' figure of 30,110, with a 3-year comparison as follows:
2013: 30,110
2012: 30,457
2011: 31,448
To which can be added (using previous annual reports of 2010, 2007 and 2004):
2010: 32,963
2009: 33,108
2008: 33,761
2007: 33,566
2006: 30,609
2005: 30,714
2004: 27,688
In other words, the fluctuation from the peak membership figure of 33,761 in 2008 is about 10% to the current level of 30,110.
The last published 'paying units' figure was for 2011: 17,114.
Last year, when the figure wasn't published, I requested it from the membership dept. for 2012: 16,782.
I'm obviously not in a position to obtain the figure for 2013.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 22-11-13 15:36; edited 2 times 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?
|
|
Bode Swiller, I have vague memories of a newspaper article referring to a rep at Les Arcs being quoted in depth by 'arnold lunn' which now seems to have been deleted from the relevant thread (maybe for copyright reasons). IIRC that reported what the journalist thought was a lack of competence of a leader, rather than an incident in terms of a significant accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
You have all the data you need right there. Either:
(a) Assume that all the delta is people who pay, as there's no incentive for "ghost" members to quit, so the total for this year is 16,782 - 347, or 16,435.
(b) If in 2012 the headline 30,457 members were actually 16,782 paying people, then they're multiplying actual membership by about 1.8. To a first approximation you can therefore divide that back into the published numbers to find the actual values.
In either case, you should be able to relate the numbers of paying punters to the finances, which presumably are published in the annual report or elsewhere and should follow a similar curve.
I wonder:
- Precisely how are "members" defined in "annual reports"? One set of data is clearly wrong or misleading, and a factor of two is quite important.
- Why do the numbers peak around 2008? What was the reason for the rise before that and the drop afterwards?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
A 10% drop from '08 to '12 beats the market which slid by around 25% over the same period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| It's remarkable how few people attend that AGM. I took 28 copies of my letter down there and returned with 15. I was on the pavement for 30 minutes before the meeting started. Maybe a few people got there super-early. A couple of people slipped past me without being accosted, when I was talking to someone else. |
28 was a familiar number for the show of hands votes. Sometimes slipped to 23.
Maybe you could earn a few bob as a replacement for the previous counters* who used to charge £2.5k for their services? I presume this was not just for the AGM though I am not sure there is that much more that they used to do.
* Electoral Reform Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
- Why do the numbers peak around 2008? What was the reason for the rise before that and the drop afterwards? |
Think I can help you with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus with an aging membership and a mortality rate of about 7 per 1000 in IC1 males over 50...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Richard_Sideways, plus there's an even more enormous financial crisis just around the corner nobody is talking about much. Yep, we're all doomed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Jones, thank you for that business development suggestion. The chances of my being appointed to count votes at a Ski Club meeting are equivalent to a snowman in a crematorium.
Interesting, though, that you indicate that Electoral Reform Services are no longer working for the Ski Club. Clouseau has now sent me the complete 2013 annual report, with its voting form, and this is clearly the case.
ERS have been involved in the scrutiny of SCGB elections since 1995 (i.e. for 18 years). As I recall, they gave early warnings to the Club that its engagement with members (voters) was insufficient - i.e. not enough ballots being cast in proportion to the membership (and what ERS were accustomed to for similar sized clubs etc.). The cost of their services is not the issue at all (in relation to a £4 million SCGB turnover). ERS were brought in because the membership wanted independent ballot services - they did not trust the previous arrangement of the office staff or elected officers doing this work.
This is a significant retrograde step for the Club - one either operates the organisation with some sense of ambition and progressiveness in the 21st century, or it reverts to the bad old days. It does appear that the Council, as of last night, now has one female Council member out of a total of 11 - obviously an improvement on the previous all-male board. Let's hope that Kim Moss - an internationally experienced chartered accountant - finds her experience a fulfilling one.
Electoral Reform Services: http://www.electoralreform.co.uk/index.php
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Fri 22-11-13 17:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I was there last night.
There were three candidates for three vacancies so the chairman explained that the council had decided that the ERS was unnecessary on this occasion thus saving £2.5K and he hoped that the members would understand that.
There was no vote on the night as members accepted that there was no need and the three individuals were elected unopposed.
Nothing sinister at all, just common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I wonder if the mods will be asked to redact some of the les arcs orientated posts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richjp, it would have been bizarre to do anything else. What an odd thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
richjp and achilles, essentially I agree. I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that because Electoral Reform Services had been dropped in this instance that this reflected a change of policy.
It'll probably be beneficial for the SCGB to have a competitive election for Council members in 2014 - i.e. more candidates than directorships available, for meritocratic/democratic reasons - and therefore the need for voting ... and therefore the need for ERS scrutineers again.
Was the number of postal/electronic votes declared to the meeting on Thursday? Obviously you're hardly obliged to answer that (especially the number of votes) since it was a members' meeting, but - as mentioned above - the percentage of SCGB members voting was a cause of concern to the ERS 15-18 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Was the number of postal/electronic votes declared to the meeting on Thursday? Obviously you're hardly obliged to answer that (especially the number of votes) since it was a members' meeting, but - as mentioned above - the percentage of SCGB members voting was a cause of concern to the ERS 15-18 years ago. |
Yes it was declared. Cannot remember exact figures - a couple of hundred maybe ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Well, there we go: a national skiers' organisation with a stated membership of over 30,000, controlled by fewer than 300 voters. 99% of members essentially non-engaged or trusting, or however one wishes to interpret their passivity.
Coupled with that reality is a new £23 "beginners" membership (open to interpretation as "newbies to SCGB") ... which could be taken up by a few hundred new members, who could take control of the organisation. Perhaps to its benefit, perhaps as carpet-baggers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Well week commencing 1 December it looks like there will be 91 SCGB members in Val d'Isere for their Premier Party and around 83 Snowheads Bashees in Tigne (of course many attendees will have a foot in both camps). All in all it looks like a fantastic week's skiing for all concerned; what it should be all about rather than a 57 page year long internet spat.
With the seasonal festivities approaching maybe we should arrange a friendly football match in no man's land between the two valleys to put this to bed once and for all? It would be great if CG could come out to referee and maybe even ski with both camps too?
However I fear a more likely prospect is the sight of a sad solitary figure attempting to hand out a big stack of copies of his correspondence with the SCGB to all and sundry only to see them scattered to the wind as everybody flies past him whooping with the joy and exhilaration of skiing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
On the rocks, plus 1000000
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
All in all it looks like a fantastic week's skiing for all concerned; what it should be all about
|
yup
| Quote: |
to put this to bed once and for all?
|
afaiac, sh did this about 7 years ago. obviously someone wanted to poke and reignite the fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
krakatoagoldsmith, shame it was not more of a challenger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCGB 2013 Annual Report: second nibble
This hardly needs words from me, so here's the full accompanying text from the SCGB itself:
"Ski Club Leaders
The Leader service continued to prove very popular last season, with over 13,000 skier days achieved in 33 resorts. We received excellent feedback, with many members commenting on the high value of service that leading offers, emphasising how important the service is to our membership.
Although there are two resorts that aren’t hosting Leaders this season, we’re looking to increase participation in2014/15 and make the programme more appealing for members and non-members alike."
Enthusiastic 'Skeeb watchers' will doubtless have interesting things to say about the trends revealed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
| On the rocks, plus 1000000 |
It's amazing that in any sphere of recreation, people can turn what should be all about groups of people having simple fun into a load of pot pissing and childish politics.
I see it on Lotus car forums, on bike forums, on sailing forums.
I have no axe to grind in any of this, just as an outside observer, none of the main parties on this thread come out looking like sensible rational people. You certainly wouldn't want to share a chocalat chaud or beer with any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
| ...All in all it looks like a fantastic week's skiing for all concerned; what it should be all about rather than a 57 page year long internet spat. |
Apologies if this is obvious, but:
- If you don't like a thread, then the best thing you can do is not to read it.
That way you have no risk of taking "offence"; you don't increase the popularity of the thread; and there's no chance you'll feel the need to post.
- You should never, ever post if you don't like a thread.
Even worse would be to post to a thread and suggest it should stop: that's pouring petrol on a fire.
- It's not possible to actually ski on the internet.
The thread would die within minutes if it was just one guy talking to himself. But the fire's warm, and you collectively keep chucking more skis on it.
I love "childish politics", as does everyone who has read this thread more than once. You can play the game and then bitch about the rules when you're losing, but you're not likely to get much sympathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I with you on this 