 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Gerry wrote: |
What does that mean in reality? The Club has been run for the last few years with almost no regard for even the most basic principles of business |
The Maplin of ski clubs then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| davidof wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
What does that mean in reality? The Club has been run for the last few years with almost no regard for even the most basic principles of business |
The Maplin of ski clubs then? |
Hi-de-Hi! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
What does that mean in reality? The Club has been run for the last few years with almost no regard for even the most basic principles of business |
The Maplin of ski clubs then? |
Hi-de-Hi! |
Ho-di-Ho
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| stewart woodward wrote: |
| Blackblade wrote: |
| stewart woodward wrote: |
@Blackblade,
How would an instructor become an associate member of a ski school? Not sure if there is such a position in France  |
Most junior instructors are 'Associates' ... they are not salaried nor directly employed by the school. This is the case in most of Europe. |
Not sure if this is the case in France where all the problems were with regard to guiding. |
Most French instructors are self employed are they not Stewart? |
Yes but what is an associate? In France you are either a staggiere or fully qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| ed123 wrote: |
| I'm also confused as to why it became a private company limited by guarantee rather than a cooperative. |
It's non profit making so is pretty the same as a cooperative just no dividend to hand out. I wasn't there when they set up as limited so don't know what their considerations were. It also has the legal tax status of a sports club which I think had something to do with it. |
Just a small point - co-operatives are not necessarily non profit. It's an ownership structure, not a business model. Similar to a mutual in that regard. Both can generate profits (see Nationwide Builiding society as a mutual and Suma Wholefoods as a co-operative). Both generate profits, in the case of Nationwide, the profits are greater than Tesco's (maybe not this year!  )
It's not whether you generate a profit, it's what you do with the profit. In a co-op and a mutual, it is distributed to the members as benefits or in the case of a worker's cooperative, as remuneration. in a limited company, the profit is owned by the shareholders. It's a bit off topic, but relevant to understanding the context of ownership structure as separate to business model
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| stewart woodward wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| stewart woodward wrote: |
| Blackblade wrote: |
| stewart woodward wrote: |
@Blackblade,
How would an instructor become an associate member of a ski school? Not sure if there is such a position in France |
Most junior instructors are 'Associates' ... they are not salaried nor directly employed by the school. This is the case in most of Europe. |
Not sure if this is the case in France where all the problems were with regard to guiding. |
Most French instructors are self employed are they not Stewart? |
Yes but what is an associate? In France you are either a staggiere or fully qualified. |
I have no idea but, AFAIKS, you can't work at a French ski school as an instructor without being registered either as a pro or stagiere, as you say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the Chairman's statement it does look like he is throwing the outgoing CEO under the bus and, not content with that, he says he's going to stick the boot in some more a bit later with more detail. It's not a good look. From a PR perspective I'd advise them to move on positively.
I think you can trace the start of the latest trouble back to when the previous CEO said something daft to the press about trebling the membership. If that really was the plan then the spend had to be upped to achieve it and once the spending starts it's hard to stop. The accounts tell the story. I look at operating profit or loss as the best guide and it was all fairly 'not-for-profit' up until y/e 04/17. Then an operating loss of £104k up to 04/18 and a whopping operating loss of £1.15million to y/e 04/19. One can only wonder what y/e 04/20, just a few weeks away, will look like. A multi-car pile up probably - if overheads remain broadly the same, if the membership graph is still sloping downwards, if they are selling less holidays and insurance, if they are having to refund holidays right now, then the losses for y/e 04/20 are likely to be worse than the previous year. This thing is only being held together by the funds realised from selling the HQ and that runs out eventually.
Going back before the outgoing CEO, under fixed assets, there is a figure of £417k for web development! Who the hell managed to spend that kind of money on the website we see before us. It's really poor, the chat room doesn't seem to have even been integrated and it's the kind of effort I'd spend a max £10k on. Someone clearly did very nicely out of it. CEOs are in the firing line (the previous one had the good sense to jump first) but you have to level much blame on the board for that kind of overspend.
If you were tasked with starting a national ski club from scratch, would it look anything like the current SCGB? No, nothing like. It would probably look more like Snowheads which seems to run without any of the drama or even an HQ. I mean, is there an HQ or a company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
Well, although I live in Surrey, I've skied with SCGB members from all over the country and indeed the world. So I'm not sure it's struggled too much.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed skiing with the Club. |
I'm not disputing that there are members who live beyond a 20km radius of Hampton Court, I'm one, my family make up 4 more. But I think you confuse anecdote with evidence. The evidence from the annual reports showing very poor regional membership and tiny numbers of overseas members, with an aging demographic and that is despite the employment of staff specifically to attract a younger membership.
Gerry- what do you think could be done better and how?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| lynnecha wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| ed123 wrote: |
| I'm also confused as to why it became a private company limited by guarantee rather than a cooperative. |
It's non profit making so is pretty the same as a cooperative just no dividend to hand out. I wasn't there when they set up as limited so don't know what their considerations were. It also has the legal tax status of a sports club which I think had something to do with it. |
Just a small point - co-operatives are not necessarily non profit. It's an ownership structure, not a business model. Similar to a mutual in that regard. Both can generate profits (see Nationwide Builiding society as a mutual and Suma Wholefoods as a co-operative). Both generate profits, in the case of Nationwide, the profits are greater than Tesco's (maybe not this year! )
It's not whether you generate a profit, it's what you do with the profit. In a co-op and a mutual, it is distributed to the members as benefits or in the case of a worker's cooperative, as remuneration. in a limited company, the profit is owned by the shareholders. It's a bit off topic, but relevant to understanding the context of ownership structure as separate to business model |
Which is why I stated 'no dividend'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pruman wrote: |
I think you can trace the start of the latest trouble back to when the previous CEO said something daft to the press about trebling the membership. If that really was the plan then the spend had to be upped to achieve it and once the spending starts it's hard to stop. The accounts tell the story. |
The cost to acquire a customer https://www.forentrepreneurs.com/startup-killer/
There are a lot of startups that have basically used venture capital to subsidize millennial to use their service. The idea is that you eventually drive out the competition and then bingo!
The thing is a national ski club could have more members, the DSV does but it does a lot more like instructing and also has mountains in its home country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@davidof, The DSV is a national governing body for skiing, the SCGB doesn't seem to want to admit that it hasn't been one of those for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
There are lots of other ski clubs. I'm a member of SCOM (Ski Club of Manchester- £7/yr - and as it is SSE affiliated, unlike SCGB, it means I can race in GB championships - slowly).
SCUM- the Ski Club of The University of Manchester.
DHO
Kandahar
Eagle
Wirral
LDSC
I think the unfortunate thing is that unless an SCGB member uses the reps / leaders / ILG or Freshtracks (which is a small proportion of members it seems) then the question "what do I get from SCGB membership?" is answered by "not much other than the knowledge that you are a member of SCGB and so you could use those things if you wanted to / had the time" .
Previously my wife and I and our eldest child skied quite a bit with SCGB groups. But we don't now. Without that the SCGG needs to offer something else, that is good, quickly.
Whatever the "something else" might be, I don't know- apart from that it absolutely is not something digital / based on social media or an intangible product (like insurance) that you buy.
Who would think that people join a ski club to erm.....ski.
I think the SCGB should come up with something that involves skiing. Like what all those other ski clubs do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ed123 wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
Well, although I live in Surrey, I've skied with SCGB members from all over the country and indeed the world. So I'm not sure it's struggled too much.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed skiing with the Club. |
I'm not disputing that there are members who live beyond a 20km radius of Hampton Court, I'm one, my family make up 4 more. But I think you confuse anecdote with evidence. The evidence from the annual reports showing very poor regional membership and tiny numbers of overseas members, with an aging demographic and that is despite the employment of staff specifically to attract a younger membership.
Gerry- what do you think could be done better and how? |
There's not one single thing we do that we can't do better.
Just to be clear, just so I can be sure that you are aware, I've only become re-involved since November 2019. The major difficulties we now face were not there when I stepped down in 2015.
The geographic distribution has remained pretty much the same as it was when I joined in 1989. The membership is also, almost exclusively while, middle class. Do you think I should try and change the latter, or just go with it? There have been enormous efforts to get younger people in over the last 15 years, yet the average ago still creeks up. We think this is a lot to do with economics and the fact that younger people have their friends to ski with. We need to get more families with kids involved through racing but I don't think we will ever be a natural home people between 20 and 40.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rjs wrote: |
| @davidof, The DSV is a national governing body for skiing, the SCGB doesn't seem to want to admit that it hasn't been one of those for a long time. |
Er, excuse me? In what way is the Ski Club pretending to be a snowsports governing body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| rjs wrote: |
| @davidof, The DSV is a national governing body for skiing, the SCGB doesn't seem to want to admit that it hasn't been one of those for a long time. |
Er, excuse me? In what way is the Ski Club pretending to be a snowsports governing body? |
Only to the extent of resisting changes that could let it find a new role and reason to exist. It used to be the snowsports governing body for the UK.
You suggest that junior racing could be a way of getting younger people involved, are there any ideas on how to do this yet ? I am a UKSS coach and racer and would like to think that I understand the French race scene too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Member clubs ultiimately only survive if they offer value to members. At one time, information on resort conditions, local weather, equipment etc was more difficult to come by, so valued - but all are now readily available elsewhere. Freshtracks (which as I understand it specialises in off-piste skiing), and specialist insurance can still be worthwhile, although both could potentially be offered by other commercial providers.
Many members joined for the option to join those of similar ability in resort - either because they are solo, because the rest of their group are at a different level, or just because they don't know their way around. This is the sort of thing a member-led club could excel in, by just publishing a place and time for people to meet up. It shouldn't really need to have dedicated people in resort to faciliate, although any resulting social skiing does depend on those turning up being realistic about their abilities. And a good forum would let members share knowledge about resort facilities, piste knowledge (eg easier runs for those moving on from blue, red) etc. But these things don't generate money, so are often not promoted by employees!
Incidentally SCGB may be unusual in that on dissolution any remaining assets are divided among the members. Similar organisations often have a clause that assets will be passed to another organisation with similar aims - if only to discourage any incentive to wind-up and share out the spoils!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@ecureuil, actually, I have a feeling that your last para is true of the Ski Club under the new Articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
There is a desire to move back towards a club feel and focus, - the Freshtracks holidays are very good in fact (imo) but they are an add on, not visa versa. If you have a look at the new Chairman's background you'll see he too has this club first background. (he's also treasurer of the Alpine Ski Club) - so more volunteer and less professional - more member focus etc
In response to Jehu
| Quote: |
My only gripe was that by the time I could ski well enough to join the inner circle I was too old to qualify
|
Don't know whether just in jest, however there are no age limits now. And a desire to open up the "Mountain Safety Course" (previously the leaders course) so more can do this excellent course, which will help ski safety with friends, whether with the SCGB or other - so not just for 'reps'. |
No, it wasn't just in jest and I am glad there are now no age limits. I am just sad that I passed the (then) age limit a long time ago. But having observed what reps sometimes have to put up with I should probably feel relieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Lynnecha puts it superbly.
To which i would only add if you have a psychological mindset of no profit you will make a loss. The question is what you call it, surplus, and how you beneficially invest it in providing a stronger future. I was once for 12 years a Trustee, and in effect Treasurer of a large charitable organisation with huge plans for developing its benefits to society. It failed to understand it needed to generate a surplus to invest in the future. If I achieved only one thing it was to change the.mindset.
I think as others have said SCGB needs a complete blank sheet of paper strategic review. Leading is finished. Repping, whatever it is is too expensive to justify the membership fee. The insurance is fine but the loading for my medical condition was way higher than another provider. Some discounts are really good. So a new couse needs to be set with a new pricepoint. That is what the unpaid Board is there to do.
I wish them luck rather than criticise them. I am sure they are trying their hardest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Lynnecha puts it superbly.
To which i would only add if you have a psychological mindset of no profit you will make a loss. The question is what you call it, surplus, and how you beneficially invest it in providing a stronger future. I was once for 12 years a Trustee, and in effect Treasurer of a large charitable organisation with huge plans for developing its benefits to society. It failed to understand it needed to generate a surplus to invest in the future. If I achieved only one thing it was to change the.mindset.
I think as others have said SCGB needs a complete blank sheet of paper strategic review. Leading is finished. Repping, whatever it is is too expensive to justify the membership fee. The insurance is fine but the loading for my medical condition was way higher than another provider. Some discounts are really good. So a new couse needs to be set with a new pricepoint. That is what the unpaid Board is there to do.
I wish them luck rather than criticise them. I am sure they are trying their hardest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| countryman wrote: |
Lynnecha puts it superbly.
To which i would only add if you have a psychological mindset of no profit you will make a loss. The question is what you call it, surplus, and how you beneficially invest it in providing a stronger future. I was once for 12 years a Trustee, and in effect Treasurer of a large charitable organisation with huge plans for developing its benefits to society. It failed to understand it needed to generate a surplus to invest in the future. If I achieved only one thing it was to change the.mindset.
I think as others have said SCGB needs a complete blank sheet of paper strategic review. Leading is finished. Repping, whatever it is is too expensive to justify the membership fee. The insurance is fine but the loading for my medical condition was way higher than another provider. Some discounts are really good. So a new couse needs to be set with a new pricepoint. That is what the unpaid Board is there to do.
I wish them luck rather than criticise them. I am sure they are trying their hardest. |
Couple of things. Being not for profit doesn't mean you don't budget for a surplus to put in reserve. Leading isn't dead even if the expenses paid version of it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
| Of course that is correct. But there is a vocal contingent on this thread and presumably in the SCGB arguing that SCGB leading could be brought back and all that’s needed is a positive mental attitude and creative thinking. Brexit would just make this even more impossible ( if that’s possible). Is this intransigence a factor in obstructing the changes the club will need to make in order to survive? |
Count me among those who thinks that Repping (as opposed to Leading) can be brought back with a positive mental attitude and some creative thinking. The Club did a horrible job of communicating and executing on the change and needlessly alienated a bunch of their more active membership, but that can be fixed.
If effectively run, Reps can provide a much more positive resort experience than what the Leaders were allowed to do for the last decade or more. A whole bunch of legal shackles have now been removed, opening up lots of new terrain so to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
... whole bunch of legal shackles have now been removed, opening up lots of new terrain so to speak
|
Due to Brexit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Levitt wrote: |
| ......A whole bunch of legal shackles have now been removed, opening up lots of new terrain so to speak. |
How? The only reason the club stopped the leading service was that the French authorities no longer allow it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I am really sad about the current state of affairs. I have been a member for about 15 years, and when we were new to skiing the SCGB was such an exciting source of information - I really liked being a member (that's before I discovered Snowheads! )
But seriously, I may be in a minority, but I really like the magazine!
We have bought our insurance from SCGB from the beginning. This year, the experience of just renewing our policy was so bad, I was genuinely worried that the cover hadn't been administered correctly and that we would be at risk. This is before anyone heard of corvid-19 - I had to correct no fewer than 6 mistakes, including sending me someone else's renewal details in an email. I actually spoke to Ian Holt and expressed my concern of the impact on the club if it found itself on the wrong side of a GDPR violation.
@Gerry, If you are actively involved, I am an ex-Risk director of a large financial institution (retired) and if you want to engage me in any way I would be happy to contribute. I'd like to see the club survive, but I have my doubts unless we really grasp the nettle and have a radical look at the club's strategy in future.
To all Council member, I say good luck, and I wish you the best in finding a new way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| AL9000 wrote: |
| Quote: |
... whole bunch of legal shackles have now been removed, opening up lots of new terrain so to speak
|
Due to Brexit? |
No due to "peer" skiing rather than "leading". When I was a wee lad skiing with a rep used to be fun. we could roam freely around the mountain and the ones I skied with had a great deal of knowledge of the off-piste. Over time the lawyers got involved, "Reps" became "Leaders" and off piste without a guide was restricted to something along the lines of "short journeys within sight of and easy return to the piste." It got to the point where the Leader was preventing me from skiing nice snow - oh sorry that's beyond where we're allowed to go.
Now as long as somebody in the group knows the route and the group are comfortable with it; off we go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Peer skiing would be great and something I really enjoy with my mates off piste. But When I used to enjoy ski club led days before the rules became tighter most of the participants were keen to be led rather than taking on “peer” responsibilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
The club has been haemorrhaging members since ditching the rep service . I’ve not renewed 2 memberships. Sent this email ( no reply ) -
Sir,
I was flabbergasted by the spring 2020 star letter and response .
The CE’s statement that the Council act for the members and that the members shouldn’t expect to be consulted over a huge shift in ski club policies and services belies a genuine contempt for the ( diminishing) membership . This at a time when the treasurer is bemoaning a lack of high value investment, eg membership. Evidence of lack of joined up thinking at the top maybe?
Assuming that Mr Holt is not an idiot, then he clearly believes that the membership is. He pompously and wrongly asserts “ Leading is not legal “ expecting us to believe this falsehood .
Leading continues to be legal in Andorra , Austria , Italy, Spain, Switzerland etc and has been enjoyed by many this year.
This snowflake ( pun ) attitude, France - centric view and dismissal of members’ points of view could be the demise of the Ski Club. Members are leaving in droves including 2 from my household.
For the sake of the club and it’s members please get someone competent and customer focussed at the rudder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@r11s, maybe you should take this up with the lawyers who advised Mr Holt? I know they’re only very experienced experts and your opinion carries at least if not more weight. And while you’re at it tell those pesky French courts where to go; don’t they know it was us Brits who invented skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The club has been haemorrhaging members since ditching the rep service . I’ve not renewed 2 memberships. Sent this email ( no reply ) -
Sir,
I was flabbergasted by the spring 2020 star letter and response .
The CE’s statement that the Council act for the members and that the members shouldn’t expect to be consulted over a huge shift in ski club policies and services belies a genuine contempt for the ( diminishing) membership . This at a time when the treasurer is bemoaning a lack of high value investment, eg membership. Evidence of lack of joined up thinking at the top maybe?
Assuming that Mr Holt is not an idiot, then he clearly believes that the membership is. He pompously and wrongly asserts “ Leading is not legal “ expecting us to believe this falsehood .
Leading continues to be legal in Andorra , Austria , Italy, Spain, Switzerland etc and has been enjoyed by many this year.
This snowflake ( pun ) attitude, France - centric view and dismissal of members’ points of view could be the demise of the Ski Club. Members are leaving in droves including 2 from my household.
For the sake of the club and it’s members please get someone competent and customer focussed at the rudder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
| @r11s, maybe you should take this up with the lawyers who advised Mr Holt? I know they’re only very experienced experts and your opinion carries at least if not more weight. And while you’re at it tell those pesky French courts where to go; don’t they know it was us Brits who invented skiing? |
You are not allowed to be paid to lead in France. Get rid of the remuneration and there is no problem. I know I sound like a stuck record on this. That's why the ski club doesn't really look like a club to me.
This from 2014, the Ski Club had a contract with its reps !
| Quote: |
I've looked a bit more into the situation with SCGB reps. There are similar cases involving Emmaüs and the Red Cross. The "contract" may be a key piece of evidence. The provision of accommodation and food could well be considered an "avantage en nature" as was the case with a trial involving Emmaüs. More damning might be "the contract" if this specifies duties and hours it could be considered an employment contract as Snowcrazy suggests. A "volunteer" should be free to decided his own hours and actions; under French law SCGB reps could well be disguised employees. Of course I've not seen a copy of this famous contract. The title is immaterial though - it is the contents that will count. Is the rep under the control and direction of the ski club in return for accommodation, lift pass and food?
So I agree that the SCGB is likely to lose its case; an appeal will only succeed if the first court misinterpreted the law. The scgb's lawyers already saying they will go to appeal seems a little bit premature and not likely to get any sympathy from the legal system.
I think teaching by "normal" ski clubs is only tolerated because it is a marginal and fairly restricted activity which doesn't have a huge impact on professional guides and instructors. The SCGB is a large structure with extensive resources - witnessed by the fact it is able to put reps into resort for most of the season. It is a limited company. It could therefore be seen as providing unfair competition (social dumping if you like). It looks like a business hiding behind rules for volunteers. Emmaüs and the Red Cross are both registered charities in France but this didn't stop them coming under legal scrutiny in much less controversial areas as "ski instruction". Both are also well known and operating under a French legal structure, not a foreign company operating in France (ok under EU rules this should not matter but will make the SCGB more opaque to the French authorites).
Note: this is just my thoughts at this stage. There may be completely different arguments in court. I'm not sure the EU is going to be much help to them really as it seems to concern the right of professional establishment. |
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sat 11-04-20 11:21; 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?
|
@davidof,
| Quote: |
Get rid of the remuneration and there is no problem.
|
I know you will know, but are you sure that would get rid of any problems? E.g. if leading under-18s (maybe it's under 16s or under 14s ?? )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@davidof, are there many leaders who would be prepared to pay all of their holiday costs to spend their time guiding skiers of unproven (self certified) skiing ability and mountain safety awareness off piste without the back up of ski club insurance, and with the cost of having to do the leaders refresher course every few years? If yes then hats off to them
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sat 11-04-20 11:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
| @davidof, are there many leaders who would be prepared to pay all of their holiday costs to spend their time guiding skiers of unproven (self certified) skiing ability and mountain safety awareness without the back up of ski club insurance, and with the cost of having to do the leaders refresher course every few years? If yes then hats off to them |
where has this nonsense about insurance come from? I lead club groups on and off piste in France and am insured by the FFME or FFS depending on the group. I don't get paid for it.
The French ski clubs will pay you to do the training courses (about 15 days for the FFME course) and I don't know for the FFS, I taught under my BASI qualifs.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 11-04-20 11:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| On the rocks wrote: |
| @r11s, maybe you should take this up with the lawyers who advised Mr Holt? I know they’re only very experienced experts and your opinion carries at least if not more weight. And while you’re at it tell those pesky French courts where to go; don’t they know it was us Brits who invented skiing? |
You are not allowed to be paid to lead in France. Get rid of the remuneration and there is no problem. |
That's it in a nutshell and other EU countries have aligned with French law. It won't be too long before they start doing more control stops. Leading your mates around? No problem, just accompany this nice policeman back to the station and make a statement. It shouldn't take more than 8 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@On the rocks,
Why would I take it up with the lawyers? SCGB should take it up with their lawyers as, other than in the exceptional circumstances in France , guiding continues quite legally throughout Europe. Your snarky attitude would be more appropriate if your point was valid. Which it’s not .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Gerry, which other countries have introduced this , and when ? Genuine question
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| r11s wrote: |
| @Gerry, which other countries have introduced this , and when ? Genuine question |
Not CH anyways, you can teach there without a qualifcation for money AFAIKS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because Mr Holt has taken legal advice. Telling Mr Holt that he is wrong simply contradicts that advice, therefore the way forward would be to engage with the lawyers, unless you have sufficient legal knowledge to overrule the lawyers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
