"Comedy" Goldsmith, but you were aware of exactly who, what and why led to MO day... weren't you?
and the thread on the SCGB forum linked on the Niseko thread - an oldie-but-goldie - was one of the more sustained examples of what you used to do... and still do as this very thread shows!
'David Goldsmith' : I was not referring to MO day but to your own eventual banning from posting on the SCGB forum and, more recently, the termination of your membership of the club which you want closed down.
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?
Scrumpy, again you miss the point. The point of the termination letter was to convey a threat of legal action (for alleged libel) and potential "further legal action".
The SCGB is in the business of 'control freakery' ... as I tried to point out at the 2004 AGM (following MO Day, the previous February). But we're in the 21st century now, with new media and social media empowering the individual against the institution/Establishment. The old ways used to work quite effectively (though I'd argue that the SCGB has been in decline in relation to the British skiing community for over 50 years). Wake up and smell the cappuccino.
shovels down... it is not the dyspraxic carrying that is important per-se but you just know when someone rolls up like that in your group that you are going to have to spend the day nursemaiding them around the slopes. Helping them with kit, fetching their lift pass they left in the hotel, It is a sign that their ambitions maybe need reigning in and that you should keep an eye on them. You will also have to listen to how they would be able to ski better if only they had their boots aligned, fitted, footbeds, ramp angles corrected yadiyadiyadi.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
davidof wrote:
philwig wrote:
davidof wrote:
Skis being carried like a true billy.
Um, how are you supposed to carry them?
shovels down... it is not the dyspraxic carrying that is important per-se but you just know when someone rolls up like that in your group that you are going to have to spend the day nursemaiding them around the slopes. Helping them with kit, fetching their lift pass they left in the hotel, It is a sign that their ambitions maybe need reigning in and that you should keep an eye on them. You will also have to listen to how they would be able to ski better if only they had their boots aligned, fitted, footbeds, ramp angles corrected yadiyadiyadi.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
The SCGB's "19,869" family members:
A mathematical impossibility?
The two clips on the right: one from the Ski Club of Great Britain's online 'join' page and the other from the 2013 annual report ... suggest that the SCGB's reported 19,869 family members is an impossibility. According to the wording:
a. The SCGB does not appear to recognise single-parent families. The "family" membership states "Good for couples and families", but in each case the membership comprises "two members".
b. The SCGB does not appear to count any children, even of adult age, as "members". The family membership only counts the parents (where families with children, as distinct from couples) as members.
Therefore, the total number of members within SCGB family memberships cannot be an odd number. Or am I wrong? I have discussed this at length with Comedy Auditors and my associate Clouseau. We have jointly concluded that this statistic is an impossibility.
Moreover ... there is a much larger elephant in the room here - in fact, several thousand apparent elephants in the room. Can everyone see the much larger apparent impossibility in that "19,869" statistic?
After all it is free
After all it is free
Working with the SCGB's own data ...
Here's reason No.1 why the data above appears to be impossible: the 2011 SCGB annual report declared 17,114 'paying units' (subscriptions).
From the pie chart above we know that 21,026 of the 31,448 members were family members. At two members per subscription, that's 21,026 divided by two = 10,513 family memberships. Add to that the 9,500 individual membership and 922 under 24s. So that's 20,935 paying units in total ... but the SCGB says there were 17,114.
Work the 2011 data the other way round: if there were 17,114 paying units, deduct the individual memberships (9500 paying units) and under 24s (922 paying units) and you get 6,692 family paying units. Double this to get the total family members - 13,384. But the SCGB says there were 21,026. So that's a discrepancy of 7,642 members.
-----------
Reason No.2: Clouseau has done the calculation for 2013, working with the overall declared SCGB subscription income of £1,131,250 ... and reckons there is an even greater discrepancy in the declared total family membership figure of 19,869, having deducted the revenue generated by individual memberships and under-24s.
Unfortunately (and peculiarly) the SCGB has not published the paying units figures for 2012 or 2013, so there's a limit to how many ways the cat can be skinned.
More on this in due course.
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.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
More on this in due course.
Oh shit
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Funnily enough when I learn't to ski skis were always carried points upwards, in fact I still carry them that way and can do so without holding them, the sign of an inexperienced skier are those who carry skis horizontally rather in the style of the Marx method for carrying planks with equally comedic value
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Comedy Goldsmith, So . . . are you postulating that the Tea Club is under declaring its income or overstating its membership?
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.
Well theres certainly something odd about their figures, put in their membership numbers and how much each membership costs and you get just over £2.4M which is more than double the declared £1.13M so I can see his point
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
D G Orf, Wouldn't the The Taxman or Inspector Flatfoot find that of interest?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Masque, I guess that depends on what they are actually declaring financially, as I said it's odd but probably not fraudulent, for instance just as an example it may be that the £1.13M is after various costs are removed, I don't know you'd need to see the accounts, one reason I like the DHO is we are much more transparent with our accounts
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Masque wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, So . . . are you postulating ... ?
Is that the fancy full word for 'posting'?
If "yes", then the answer is "yes".
I'm saying what I'm saying, on the old writers' principle of 'show don't tell' [which should be followed more often].
There's a great deal of evidence of a lot of stuff over these 73 pages ... and there's the unfolding mystery of the SCGB's Scottish snow reporting, on another channel [currently running to page 17] ...
... is that all 5 Scottish ski areas are open this morning, as we approach 2014.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
150,000 views
Another landmark of absurdity was passed the other day, when this thread - New Ski Club of Great Britain Chat Forum - passed 150,000 views. This did not go unnoticed by Austrian Domino Art ... don't miss the micro cablecar at the beginning ...
Comedy Goldsmith, I'm avoiding stating that you may think that the Tea Club is allegedly being operated by a bunch of crooks for their own enrichment . . . though they do seem to have developed 'obfuscation' to an 'artform'
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?
CG,
Quote:
Or am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. You have only to click on the membership option to get to the online form to find this out. Any children under 24 named on the form are members. Another for the list of Goldsmith stillborn conspiracy theories.
Another for the list of Goldsmith conspiracy theories, which have a strange habit of forming legs and running around the neighbourhood.
Fixed it for you.
Beck Daross wrote:
Any children under 24 named on the form are members.
Really? Non-skiing toddlers? What about children under 24 not living at the same address? Pedantry is not an issue here -the definition above clearly states that the family membership comprises "two members" - that's exactly what it says. Herewith the page concerned ...
If you would just click through to the online membership form you would find that all children under 24, living at the same address are 'family members' of the club if named on the application and that PJSki has correctly fixed your error.
Quote:
What does the constitution of the Club state?
This is your conspiracy so I find it remarkably lame that you failed to fact check it to begin with. Nonetheless you are most definitely wrong.
The terms and conditions of membership state:
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
Note: "where there are two or more members". Clearly then, two is not the limit that you assume and your hypothesis that
Quote:
the total number of members within SCGB family memberships cannot be an odd number
...is shown to be wrong.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Also: Discounts, special offers etc give more memberships per k turnover, similarly as can delayed renewals; but if the receipt falls in a later year to the membership count the converse could apply. Without thorough audit of new and renewed membership etc. speculation is meaningless.
After all it is free
After all it is free
PJSki, Beck Daross and anyone else willing to be wheeled out,
the SCGB's position could hardly be clearer: Individual membership creates one member; Family membership creates two members.
The illustration - right - says it all.
I suggested that the constitution be quoted, since this would relate the issue to the number of voting members generated by a family membership, and also presumably indicate the minimum voting age for the SCGB.
It does matter how many voting adults - i.e. members (unless non-voting members are defined properly) - are allowed in a family membership, because that affects the rightful voting control of the Club itself ... not to mention the ownership of the Club (one share per member? one member one vote?).
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.
Comedy Goldsmith, One vote per paying unit, obviously, which goes to the principle member within a family membership paying unit.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 30-12-13 7:59; edited 2 times in total
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
PJSki wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, One vote per paying unit, obviously, which goes to the principle member within a family membership paying unit.
Family memberships can have up to a maximum of 2 over 18s on the membership voting.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
PJSki wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, One vote per paying unit, obviously, which goes to the principle member within a family membership paying unit.
That's also rubbish. Since the SCGB has a written constitution, there's no point in misrepresenting it.
Confirms that SCGB Family membership generates two votes, and presumably therefore comprises two members (as confirmed by the illustration panel above) ... though the constitution is messy on that point.
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.
DG,
Quote:
Confirms that SCGB Family membership generates two votes, and presumably therefore comprises two members
Presumption not required. Get the blinkers off. The same section you refer to also makes it plain that:
Quote:
Family members shall be entitled to receive all the privileges of ordinary or youth membership whichever shall apply
You must have read that. The articles also define a member as:
Quote:
Any member of the Club
...and make the distinction with a voting member:
Quote:
Voting Member: A member entitled to vote at general meetings of the Club
By definition, one does not have to be entitled to vote to be a member. You started by asking the question:
Quote:
The SCGB's "19,869" family members:
A mathematical impossibility?....Or am I wrong?
Clearly you are wrong as per the articles as well as the terms and conditions I quoted previously. It is simple really, the club makes it abundantly clear that family membership includes as many kids as there are livng at the family address. But having got that wrong you now obfuscate by writing:
Quote:
I suggested that the constitution be quoted, since this would relate the issue to the number of voting members generated by a family membership
The club stat you are challenging is that of "family members", not "voting members". One does not have to be entitled to vote to be a "family member". You have failed miserably to prove what you claimed, namely that "this statistic is an impossibility".
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
PJSki wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, One vote per paying unit, obviously, which goes to the principle member within a family membership paying unit.
That's also rubbish. Since the SCGB has a written constitution, there's no point in misrepresenting it.
Confirms that SCGB Family membership generates two votes, and presumably therefore comprises two members (as confirmed by the illustration panel above) ... though the constitution is messy on that point.
Thanks for the correction but, as BD points out, you need to read on a bit. At the moment, whether deliberately or not, your comments are misleading and it would now be best for you to make a definitive statement regarding the facts and your understanding of them.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much on Mon 30-12-13 10:41; edited 1 time in total
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
WoW! Someone has logged in to PJSki's account.... imposter!... that is far too polite to be the REAL PJSki!
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
"The Ski Club’s snow reports are the best online" ...
... it says here.
It's 11.30 Monday. The reports (right) were copied live from skiclub.co.uk.
For the record, Cairngorm and Glencoe have been open Saturday and Sunday, and are open today Monday. As are Glenshee, Nevis Range and The Lecht.
These reports were published at 13.30 Friday ... for a ski country (Great Britain's) where skiing is predominantly done at the weekend, and where weather/snow/lift conditions require updating at least twice-daily.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
PJSki wrote:
At the moment, whether deliberately or not, your comments are misleading and it would now be best for you to make a definitive statement regarding the facts and your understanding of them.
On the contrary, the comments were perfectly leading ... to borrow a Ski Club verb ... but maybe this will help ...
SCGB membership figures: a definitive statement
1. They are almost certainly false. [That's a less definitive statement than might be appropriate under this headline, but the Ski Club holds the data and one can only therefore theorise, pending full evidence]. The current published SCGB figure for 30 April 2013 - 30,110, including 19,869 family members - appears significantly exaggerated, on the evidence available. The SCGB has a proven habit of publishing inflated statistical claims to punt its advertising and commercial services. Here is a glaring example, amongst several over the years: http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=920#2243716
2. They are characterised by omissions. The 'paying units' figure - the only definitive SCGB membership figure - has been omitted from the 2012 and 2013 SCGB annual reports. Paying units (number of subscriptions) are the only consistent yardstick, published down the 110 years of the Club.
3. The Club clearly states that family membership comprises two members. See illustration above. The Club also states, constitutionally, "a family shall comprise either: (a) a husband and wife; or (b) both parents and one or more children under the age of 24 years; or (c) one parent and one or more children under the age of 24 years."
It is not clear from that clause whether some children (e.g. non-skiing toddlers), or children at all, count as members or (for instance) non-voting members etc.
4. The Club does not discriminate between voting and non-voting members in its membership count. But the distinction seems to be very important in terms of ownership and control of the Club - the Club's constitution makes this clear.
5. It seems highly likely that the SCGB counts 18s to 24s who are not living at the family address in its family membership figure. It would seem that the SCGB's approach/constitution requires families to 'de-list' family members who have left home, but it seems unlikely that this takes place, or is monitored by the Club.
6. The SCGB is either unique or near-unique in counting 18s to 24s in family membership units, despite their tendency to live independently as students or careerists ... not to mention the typical wish of 18s to 24s to view themselves as independent adults rather than dependants.
[end of definitive statement, which includes non-definitive assertions]
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
[end of definitive statement, which includes nothing more than a bunch of very questionable assertions]
Fixed that for you.
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?
... following the departure (reported last October in the SCGB annual report) of the head of IT Paul White - the Club's "longest-serving employee" (according to the 2013 Chairman's report).
"Key accountabilities" of the job include ...
Quote:
Facilitate the Ski Club online community and ensure that all posts adhere to UGC guidelines.
Quote:
Control a digital & IT budget of £160,000, accountable to the Head of Communications and Head of Commercial Services.
... nothing more than a bunch of very questionable assertions
As a board member of the Ski Club of Great Britain you'd be well advised to look into those 2013 membership figures, instead of huffing and puffing and trolling all the time, because there seems to be something not quite right about them. It's your participatory duty as a director/Council member to see that the SCGB operates properly.
Can the Club attach names to the 19,869 family members, and are you saying that in some cases they constitute more than two members per family (i.e. in contradiction with the panel illustrated above)? At the very least, clarification is required as to why - now - 18s to 24s are included in family subscriptions (how does this benefit the Club? does the Club have any realistic way of knowing whether they live at the family address?) and whether 'non-voting members' (apparently a category) are counted as members.
The SCGB's "30,110 members": What's the true figure?
Firstly, a little background: the last time the SCGB published a 'paying units' figure for its membership was 2011: 17,114 paying units. The total membership was published as 31,448.
In 2012, no paying units figure was published, so the membership dept was asked to email the figure: 16,782. The total membership was published as 30,457.
For 2013, the SCGB has published a total membership figure of 30,110 (but again no paying units figure).
The total subcription income is given as £1,131,250.
Breaking that £1,131,250 down ...
The number of individual members - paying £60 - was given as 9,452: £567,120 income
The number of 'under 24' members - paying £22 - was given as 789: £17,358 income
Deducting those two amounts from £1,131,250 we get £546,772 ... the amount apparently raised from family subscriptions.
At £93 per family membership (divided into £546,772) we get 5,879 subscriptions.
A substantial proportion of those 5,879 subscriptions would be 'couples only' (no children). What proportion? Only the SCGB can provide that figure, but given the demographics of skiing it's likely to be a large percentage. But the Club has published a total family membership number of 19,869. It looks impossible, against 5,879 family subscriptions, once couples have been stripped out, and definitely if family memberships are counted as 2 members per family.
What is the true SCGB membership figure? And what is the true number of SCGB family members? (either at 2 members per family (which seems to be the specification), or including all children under 24 who are living at the family address)
The ball's in the SCGB's court.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
^ you've need made to look foolish by Beck Daross and now you're having another little tantrum.
You must be joking. "Beck Daross" seems to be some sort of SCGB inflatable defence agent, inflated occasionally when the Club's feeling the heat.
"Beck Daross" has made a princely total of 53 posts to snowHeads since 2004. Here are some choice examples, beginning with 4 July 2004 ... when the subject at hand was ... "650,000 unique visitors" claimed by 'Statistical Cobblers of Great Britain' [apologies to anyone easily offended] ...
Then, a bizarre defence of the SCGB's 'impounding' of 60,000+ posts made to its public ski forum from 2002-4 (eventually released again in Dec 2012, but with false names attached to many of the original posters) ...
[Other Beck Daross postings are available. It has to be said that they don't contribute a great deal to the sum total of human knowledge]
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Comedy Goldsmith, Beck Daross' post of Mon 30 Dec, makes perfect sense. If you don't understand it, that's your problem. The Ski Club owes you nothing in the way of explanation. I think most now see you for what you are, which is a rather pathetic little man with a grudge and an agenda.
After all it is free
After all it is free
PJSki / Tim Brown / Gerry / Pippin (on Winterhighland) etc. , are you Beck Daross?
If so, that might explain why Beck Daross posts make "perfect sense".
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.
Clearly it's better for you psychologically to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you is in fact just one person.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
PJSki, indeed ... you seem to invent new names to generate the maximum disagreement and unity of disagreers. Have you thought of taking out a family subscription for your various associates? [assuming they all live at the same address]
At the end of the day, all this nonsense has to make sense in terms of the interests of the Ski Club of Great Britain and its members. Something to remember.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
now see you for what you are, which is a rather pathetic little man with a grudge and an agenda.