 Poster: A snowHead
|
" Break out the shooters, George,"
" Comedy Goldsmith, we're the Sweeney and we haven't had any dinner...."
" SHUT IT!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Anybody noticed that mostly due to this thread, the "Ski Club" part of the SCGB chat forum is now members only???
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@KenX, I was going to say the other day that i woudnt be surprised if it closed down on its privacy given that people are posting in all innocence on there in their real name and then DG is cutting and pasting their chat over here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Shimmy Alcott, I don't think they had much choice. DG's cutting and pasting of peoples posts and even photos of people is well out of order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@philipb, agree totally. Ive said as much before but the response was alon the lines of that they are posting on the internet and thus not in private and therefore are fair game. Not right in my opinion though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Shimmy Alcott, this was exactly the reason given!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KenX wrote: |
| @Shimmy Alcott, this was exactly the reason given! |
Im not surprised. Not that DG will have any regret. Goes to show that his concern is not for SCGB members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
what is the difference between copy and paste and a link?... links always seem to be acceptable for reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I regard everything I post on forums like these, facebook, etc. as being in the public domain. There has been plenty of publicised cases of people being caught out. My golden rule is to only say something I would be prepared to say openly in public. Although I am sure I've broken that rule once or twice I think I got away with it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Indeed, since the topic of the week is 'SCGB director contacts Police' ... here's a familar caution for the SCGB clique ...
| Quote: |
| “You do not have to say anything ... Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” |
Source: "Being arrested: your rights" [Gov.uk]
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/when-youre-arrested
Adapting this for social media ...
| Quote: |
| "You do not have to post opinions or photos. Anything you do post may be copied 'n pasted in evidence." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
On the previous page, Gerry Aitken was invited to respond to ten questions concerning his directorship of the SCGB (an organisation which employs around 25 people and claims to cater for 29,000 people).
These questions offer him a fair opportunity to assess his 7 years as a director, against the commitments he's given, and some issues which have arisen during that time.
Whether he addresses those questions remains to be seen.
Last night, SCGB member Peter Campbell raised a few points of his own, on the Club's forum [link below] including SCGB membership numbers. "There is some dispute as to how these numbers are calculated" he says "if threads on Snowheads are to be believed."
The response from Gerry Aitken is pasted right.
Perhaps it's time for the SCGB board to be addressed as a group. This is Britain's national ski club, claiming to speak for c.900,000 British skiers as their representative body. Peter Campbell is clearly not convinced of his own Club's membership numbers (recently quoted as "16,500 households" or "29,000 members".
Thread: "What's the reason to stay with the Ski Club in 2015 & beyond?"
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/Skiing-And-Snowboarding-general?discussionID=15013#.VNSSPCxCjQo
Also, an interesting point from the Ski Club Team this morning, explaining that "membership numbers" are given to registered users (non-paying users) of skiclub.co.uk:
Thread: "Chat forum users"
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/Ski-Club-Freshtracks?discussionID=15098#.VNSU5yxCjQo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I've never stated a "preference for string over transceivers", but twist my words if you will. I've said that trailing an avalanche cord/tape, with direction+distance indication at intervals, might save your life. Someone else might come upon the avalanche scene with/without a transceiver (or competence) and be able to find you very quickly by tracing the tape back to source. Can't do any harm to trail an avalanche cord/tape, even if a transceiver is used.
You've not apologised for calling me a "lunatic" ... as yet. Still waiting for some grasp of common decency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Although it does also says that 'registered Users' are not necessarily ski club members , just that their forum system requires a 'membership number' to log in. At a guess I'd say that's just their nomenclature for a user name or maybe a system identifier rather than an actual membership number of the SCGB.
Just to ensure this doesn't get in the way of how many members they have, the same page says they have 120,000 people signed up for the newsletter (presumably registered users) so it's clear they aren't confusing registered users with actual members when they say there are 29,000 members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
So, wondering why there appears to be some kind of question over the SCGB membership and the actual membership numbers I had a quick look around and page 7 of their annual report seems pretty clear. http://www.skiclub.co.uk/assets/files/documents/annualreport_2014_final.pdf
Individual Members: 8,403
Family Memberships: 17,720
Under 24: 597
beginner: 351
Ski Club+: 1,919 (a mix of those above who pay a bit extra for some extra benefits)
Total: 28.990
It all seems pretty clear to me. Why is there any confusion over this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| olderscot wrote: |
| Why is there any confusion over this? |
I believe that the SCGB currently exaggerates its membership figure by at least 6000.
The confusion over SCGB membership figures arises for the following 5 reasons:
1. Omitted data. The Club hasn't declared its subscription ('paying units') figure in the past 3 annual reports - 2014, 2013 and 2012 - despite that being the standard measure quoted in all financial summaries prior to that. The 'paying units' figure quoted in the 2011 report was 17,114.
[The only indication of a more recent figure was given by the SCGB's head of communications Ella Clark last October - "over 16,500 households". Point 28 here:
http://www.skipedia.co.uk/2014/10/38-soundbites-from-the-listex-2014-ski-forum/ ]
2. 2 members per family. The Club states that a family membership officially comprises two members (presumably to restrict votes and to define ownership shares of the Club). That's specified here:
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/join/default.aspx#.VNSr1ixCjQo
3. Confusion over family members. The Club quoted a gross figure of 17,720 family members in the 2014 report [see diagram right], but this is mathematically impossible, if one works this as 2 members per family. That would be 8860 family subscription 'paying units', which would be far too high. See the next point - 4.
4. Confusion in 2011. In 2011 - the last year in which a proper analysis can be made from the SCGB's declared data - the Club had ...
9500 individual members - paying units
922 under 24 members - paying units
6692 family members - paying units (but declared in the 2011 annual report as 21,026 gross)
---------------------------
17,114 total declared paying units (+ 6692 additional family members to give gross SCGB membership figure of 23,806)
Despite that correct calculation of 23,806, the SCGB in 2011 declared a gross membership figure of 31,448.
5. The 'up to 24' change. Ever since the SCGB declared in 2005 that it was including 'children' up to the age of 24 in family memberships (the previous age limit was 18) there has been potential confusion as to who can be counted in a family subscription - i.e. how many membership cards are issued. As the above link clearly indicates, only 2 membership cards can be issued per family.
In conclusion, the SCGB should declare - how many subscriptions were paid in the 2013-4 financial year? (to provide the 'paying units' figure). How many membership cards did it issue in that year? (to provide the gross membership figure).
I would estimate, based on all the data, that the gross membership of the SCGB is currently no higher than 23,000. It claims 'over 29,000'
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
The page you link to also mentions 'Any number of children under 24 all living at the same address'. The terms and conditions of membership defines family membership as '2 adults married or cohabiting. residing at the same address and any of their children under the age of 24 living at the same address.'
Based on the above if you assumed an average of 3 members per family membership then with 6692 family memberships you would get more than 20,000 members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| paulk wrote: |
| if you assumed an average of 3 members per family membership |
Obviously one can't define or control this sort of thing on the basis of an 'assumption'.
The SCGB either counts a family sub as 2 members (which is what it says it does) or it has to give an alternative credible definition.
As I say, the critical question is "how many membership cards/numbers have been issued? ... in the past financial year"
The added confusion today over non-paying "registered users" of its website being given "membership numbers" doesn't help at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I don't see anything that says family membership officially comprises two members, The terms and conditions mention this which appears to suggest there can be more than two members in a family membership:
| Quote: |
The 'Principal Member' in a Family membership where there are two or more members is the person to whom any membership material will be sent and who will be contacted for renewal and any other membership related reasons.
|
Using the 2011 numbers as a guide as they show both sets of numbers; 6,692 family memberships represents 21,026 members. i.e. 3.14 members per paid family membership which doesn't sound unreasonable.
That also makes sense if you look at their 2014 membership subscriptions:
Individual: 8,403 @ £62 = £520,986
Family: 17,720 / 3.14 (5,614) x £93 = £524,828
Under 24: 597 x £23 = £13,731
Beginner: 351 x £23 = £8,073
Ski Club +: 1,919 (1055*) x £81* = £85,455 (* used the average of the above members per membership times the average membership costs plus the £10 per person premium)
Total; £1,153,073 Versus £1,154,601 declared as membership income. Looks pretty close to me.
And if we then add up the number of memberships we get 16,020 which also seems about right and in line with the number of households claimed.
If their figures say that each family membership has 3 members (or thereabouts) per family then I don't see the problem with them using that in their membership count. When you take out a family membership you state who in the family will become members so they know exactly how many they should be counting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
It does give a credible definition! You just choose to ignore/interpret it to suit your argument.
Our family membership gave us three membership cards/numbers, 2 votes and 1 copy of snow and board magazine. This is clearly defined in the Articles of Association of the Ski Club of Great Britain Ltd
The 3 was chosen as an example to show how easily the numbers could stack up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK ... that makes things clearer. On that basis I don't understand why the 'join' page specifies "2 members" for each family, if that's not true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no I'm driving past the crash again and can't help myself!
A question for the mods. Is sH fundamentally anti the ski club? Because supporting this tirade sure makes it look like that.
Question for David Goldsmith. Do you ever have to do anything productive during your day or is this your mission?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
no. only 1 sH.
sH put the sH vs SCGB thing to rest years ago (nearly 10 in fact).
SCGB member(s) re-ignited it.
1 sH kept it alight.
30,000 sH CGAS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skribble wrote: |
Question for David Goldsmith. Do you ever have to do anything productive during your day or is this your mission? |
Perhaps I should respond with a mission statement:
Later today I shall make my regular tubular mission down the Northern Line to Waterloo to welcome the public to Southbank Centre (mainly the Royal Festival Hall). Culturally this stacks up quite well compared to the frozen cultural wilderness of the Skeeb. The SCGB scandal must (in my view) be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for the good of British skiing. There is an evolving narrative here, and the nation's skiers deserve something better.
Other very exciting things are in the mill, by the way.
I like your username "skribble", BTW - very good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Where's the tirade? and why pressure the mods?
At the moment this seems like a fairly straightforward discussion on how many members SCGB counts for each family membership. It also looks as if we're reaching some clarity which surely is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| The SCGB scandal must (in my view) be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for the good of British skiing. |
The SCGB "scandal" has nothing at all to do with the majority of British skiers.
The only people all of these accusations actually affect are members of the SCGB. As a private members' club, it is up to them to push for reform of the club, should they wish. Having outsiders do it is not only a waste of time but, quite frankly, none of their business.
As a non-member of the SCGB I recognise that my opinion of them is worthless, and how they conduct themselves is absolutely none of my business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Dav, I have to agree .. to a point.
The problem, and I think this is where Mr Goldsmith is basing his campaign from, is that they do more than just represent members - a large organisation will also carry influence, often implicit, and be seen to represent all skiers. (possibly all snowsporters, it will be hard to tell they are perceived by non-snowsporters).
It is also natural for such an organisation to want to appeal to non members, and natural to talk themselves up to appear more important and influential. It may even be quite aggressive in it's biggingitsselfup.
I am not currently a member, but I have been, and I have used their people in resort to ski with, have been on a couple of their holidays, used snow reports and records on the website. All went well and I would do again in the right circumstances.
Currently, I ski with family, friends and even Snowheads. I don't feel the need for their offering, and I slightly resent any idea that the SCGB represents me because, by definition I am not aligned with their current 'form'.
I do worry that it is their history and 'glory days' that David is referring to that is not aligned with me. I have nothing against their ancient past, it is what it is, but my impression is that it was run and be-membered by a sector of British society that I am not, and do not want to be part of. Particularly from outside observers that history will taint their current structure, and thus misrepresent me.
So yes, I think I support Mr Goldsmith in his aims, but not in his methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
On that basis I don't understand why the 'join' page specifies "2 members" for each family, if that's not true!
|
It doesn't only say that. Below the Family Members Join Now tab it states:
Two members.
Any number of children under 24 all living at the same address.
Good for couples and families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| lampbus wrote: |
The problem, and I think this is where Mr Goldsmith is basing his campaign from, is that they do more than just represent members - a large organisation will also carry influence, often implicit, and be seen to represent all skiers. (possibly all snowsporters, it will be hard to tell they are perceived by non-snowsporters).
|
You raise some fair points (I don't necessarily agree with them) but I have quoted the one above, as I've seen it mentioned a bit but not really seen where it has come from. Where does the Ski Club claim to represent all skiers?
I'm not looking to pick an argument on it, as I genuinely don't know if they claim it or not. If they do claim it, then I agree, it's a thoroughly bizarre and nonsensical claim. I just haven't seen it (yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
A question for the mods. Is sH fundamentally anti the ski club? Because supporting this tirade sure makes it look like that.
|
No it doesn't - it looks like an open forum which supports free speech. Mr Goldwizzard may well be a complete bampot, but he is at liberty to say what he likes. I can't see why he needs to be censored. Or I can, but only for his own good, which is his business, not that of snowHeads.
The word 'bampot' brought to you all by Radio 4 and James Naughtie, btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Current SCGB statements:
| Quote: |
| The Ski Club of Great Britain is the largest snowsports Club in the UK with over 33,000 members. We are the voice of recreational snowsports ... |
Source - SCGB Press Centre:
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/presscentre/faqs.aspx#.VNToBCxCjQo
| Quote: |
| Founded back in 1903 and for many years governed competitive skiing in the UK, the Ski Club is now a voice of authority for recreational snowsports in the UK. |
Source - SCGB Facebook 'About':
https://www.facebook.com/TheSkiClub/info?tab=page_info
| Quote: |
| With over 29,000 members we’re the UK’s biggest snowsports community, with the UK’s leading snowsports website. |
Source - SCGB Facebook 'About':
https://www.facebook.com/TheSkiClub/info?tab=page_info
The SCGB declared itself the "voice of UK snowsports" in a 2008 communications statement. In its 1995 mission statement it was "spokesbody of British skiers".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The "voice of recreational snowsports" is a silly statement to make. A voice maybe, but certainly not THE voice.
Being "a voice of authority for recreational snowsports in the UK" is a fair statement, that's what they are.
Not sure how "the UK's leading snowsports website" is determined, so that one's a bit wooly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Dav, I am not sure if they claim to represent any or all snowsports beyond their membership.
However, I was trying to say that there is an implicit representation, simply because they exist and are not just a few people. They have 'Great Britain' prominent in their name and publicity, so outsiders will give them more credence than 'Ski Club of Small Hill in Northern England'.
You could argue that the 'representation' only occurs where the target of that lobbying is a non-expert. Eg, if the government wanted to control (to pick a non controversial example so as not to be distracted) the wearing of ski socks for all under 16s...they would go out to consultation with certain bodies who may have input...they may well turn to SCGB for some of that.
One would hope that the non-expert would be aware of the limitations of its selected consultation bodies, but being unfamiliar it would inherently be weak in making that selection.
Then there's the meidia, who are largely after a good headline and a quick minimal work day and would probably not even stop to think past 'give that british ski club a call'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
From the Ski Club of Great Britain's 2014 Media Pack:
http://issuu.com/skiclub/docs/ski_club_of_great_britain_-_media_p?e=12827994/8829872
"... the largest skiing and snowboarding organisatino [sic] in the UK."
"... the UK's leading snowsports website - with nearly two million unique visitors per annum."
"... the UK's most popular snowsports website"
"... the largest snowsports organisation in the world."
"... the UK's biggest snow sports website ... over 1.9 million unique users."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK. So it's a commercial organisation that's exaggerating it's influence and bigging itself up a bit.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's also in a difficult position as the services it's been providing (ski related information and guiding services) are no longer so relevant or deliverable in the current environment. So it does have to change, but will probably do so slowly in the manner of all organisations with a strong history it needs to break from.
But that seems to be about it. I don't see any scandal or fraud or anything much worth getting worked up about.
Would I like to see a ski organisation that better represents recreational skiers in the UK? I'm not sure I would really. I can't see there's much point is there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What influence have SCGB had over anything related to recreational snowsport? I mean they are not a pressure group are they? They don't campaign for anything or try to influence anything?
They aren't a governing body.
No they are just "a club". A very large club in some ways*. But nonetheless just a club. Or am I missing something?
* I am trying to think of similar examples, can anyone think of any?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
I am trying to think of similar examples, can anyone think of any?
|
Brownies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
