 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, more repeats than Dave. Again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
not the only echo i'm hearing around here 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
andy, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
ed123, I think Admino McBadmin explained - at an early stage of this thread - that no one is forced to read it ... or join the SCGB, or have a gay marriage, or eat Marmite.
Just read something else! |
Are you sure it was Admin? I thought it was Cathy, but will be happy to be wrong.
Can you do a quote please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
One of those issues ... once again ...
SCGB REPS / LEADERS
1992 ... Cost of resort operations: £85,406 ... Resorts repped: 31 ... Number of people who skied with a rep: c.15,000 ... New members recruited by reps: 1108
2011 ... Cost of resort operations: £263,451 ... Resorts repped: 34 ... Number of people who skied with a rep: 5281 ... New members recruited by reps: 229
[Sources: 1992 and 2011 SCGB annual reports]
A worthy subject for discussion by the Ski Closed Group Britain ! |
That 2011 figure would equate to £142,000 in 1992 when adjusted for inflation. Then you have to subtract the sponsorship money (I'm told it's quite a lot) so in reality the cost in real terms is no more now that it was in 92.
I would guess most now join through the website, so that easily explains the lower recruitment figures. Also, I suspect the leaders are just as popular now as they were back in the 90s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
| Can you do a quote please? |
£125 + VAT
Actually, on reflection, I think it was Martin Luther-King, or it might have been Sir Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
| Can you do a quote please? |
£125 + VAT
Actually, on reflection, I think it was Martin Luther-King, or it might have been Sir Winston Churchill. |
The problem is you actually might.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
It must be frustrating to share with all the people who cannot see what you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
| It must be frustrating to share with all the people who cannot see what you can. |
Well, he does live in his own world of self-delusion.
Not sure what's gone on behind the scenes with CG, but I'd guess he's been allowed back on the condition he doesn't criticise the way SH is run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Not sure what's gone on behind the scenes with CG, but I'd guess he's been allowed back on the condition he doesn't criticise the way SH is run. |
No such thing has gone on 'behind the scenes' and I resent your implication that there has.
Despite his criticism of snowHeads, and of me personally, over the years, Iteration Goldsmith has never been barred...other than by his own choice. from snowHeads.
I don't mind saying that it's particularly refreshing that he appears, thus far, to have chosen not to do so to any great degree on this iteration however that has no bearing on his right or capacity to do so.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Sun 24-03-13 13:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
No, I don't have to read this thread and indeed haven't done so, but I note that it is now on 35 pages and I have noted it's increasing length with increased disbelief ever time the page number increases. Given that we are all supposed to 'look out' on HSE grounds for our colleagues I do wonder if we should wonder if all this worry and concern is causing CG/DG to stress un-necessarily. He does seem very pre-occupied with it and I still cannot work out why. I do sincerely hope that he is well. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| admin wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
| Not sure what's gone on behind the scenes with CG, but I'd guess he's been allowed back on the condition he doesn't criticise the way SH is run. |
Nothing has gone on 'behind the scenes'.
Current iteration Goldsmith has never been barred...other than by his own choice. from snowHeads. |
Good to know. But strange that he currently feels that snowHeads is above and beyond any of his usual scrutiny. I do know that he was desperate for a base of operations from where he could launch his attacks against the ski club. Apparently he's wet the bed over there once too often and now they aren't being at all receptive to his daily bouts of criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| admin wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
| Not sure what's gone on behind the scenes with CG, but I'd guess he's been allowed back on the condition he doesn't criticise the way SH is run. |
No such thing has gone on 'behind the scenes' and I resent your implication that there has.
Despite his criticism of snowHeads, and of me personally, over the years, Iteration Goldsmith has never been barred...other than by his own choice. from snowHeads.
I don't mind saying that it's particularly refreshing that he appears, thus far, to have chosen not to do so to any great degree on this iteration however that has no bearing on his right or capacity to do so. |
In reply to your edit. Please don't be upset by that. I would view it as perfectly reasonable for you to gag him. It's a great thing you have going here and I note that 99.9999% of people are perfectly happy with the way you run things.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sun 24-03-13 13:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
PJSki, if that is true that is very sad. I hope he can move on.
I have not met him, but all that have seem to like him and speak highly of him.
Which seems at odds with his online personality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
PJSki, if that is true that is very sad. I hope he can move on.
I have not met him, but all that have seem to like him and speak highly of him.
Which seems at odds with his online personality. |
That entirely depends on who you speak to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
PJSki, that's possible , but lots of people leap to his defence, and how helpful he is at South bank.
I am sure if I pop in the Snowdrop they will all talk highly if him, and the huge boost he has brought to Lewes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
PJSki, if that is true that is very sad. I hope he can move on.
|
+1
I would like to meet him one day as I am also sure his offline persona would be very interesting to chat to. (Though I might steer clear of certain subject matter!), I have always had the impression of a knowledgeable, affable chap, with a wealth of information about this industry. I think he could make good after dinner conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| Quote: |
PJSki, if that is true that is very sad. I hope he can move on.
|
+1
I would like to meet him one day as I am also sure his offline persona would be very interesting to chat to. (Though I might steer clear of certain subject matter!), I have always had the impression of a knowledgeable, affable chap, with a wealth of information about this industry. I think he could make good after dinner conversation. |
Just don't take any safety advice from him, that is unless you are open to the idea that trailing brightly coloured string behind you would help get you rescued from an avalanche burial. You might also want to avoid mentioning that you use air travel or don't fancy skiing in Scotland or are thinking of buying a helmet or prefer front entry boot...
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sun 24-03-13 14:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
PJSki, that's possible , but lots of people leap to his defence, and how helpful he is at South bank.
I am sure if I pop in the Snowdrop they will all talk highly if him, and the huge boost he has brought to Lewes. |
Yeah, just a shame about the dark side that's only interested in revenge and cynicism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PJ Ski / Gerry Aitken [and his ... err ... followers], this seems an ideal opportunity to confirm what admin says above. Since I've never been barred from snowHeads [I don't know how long the 5+ year ban from the SCGB forum - since July 2007 - will continue] I've obviously not been "allowed back" here. Graham has always struck me as a perfectly friendly good-humoured bloke, and I enjoy his company on the rare occasions I see him. There were differences between us, in the early stages of snowHeads, about the terms & conditions of this site, but since the over-cooked legal language has been heavily edited back to plain honest English - and the Ts+Cs seemingly pose no threat of IP commercialisation or sale ... that chapter is well and truly closed. Viva snowHeads.
Furthermore, I look forward to seeing Graham sometime soon and giving him another three tenors (rob@rar joke), in the form of banknotes graced with the portraits of Pavarotti, Domingo and Carreras.
AN INVITATION TO GERRY AITKEN, SCGB DIRECTOR
On 2 March 2013, shortly before you departed to lead a SCGB Freshtracks holiday to Italy ('Powder Performance 2', Gressoney), you stated on the Ski Club chat forum the following:
| Quote: |
| "At least I'm trustworthy and loyal. I don't claim a penny in expenses, either as a Council member or for Leading in resort". |
| Quote: |
| "DG won't accept that 5230 (probably less than 5% were non members) individuals skied with the Leaders last season." |
After you'd left for Italy, the entire thread from which those quotes was extracted was deleted from the SCGB site. Without explanation. As a Ski Club director, you made those two points in that capacity, but they're important for two other reasons:
1. You were clearly implying that you are unrepresentative of SCGB Leaders generally. Does the Ski Club pay for your skiing (travel, accommodation, food, liftpass etc.) or does it not?
2. All official statements by the SCGB as to how many members ski with reps/leaders each winter put the figure at around 3000 - check the past annual reports. And it is clear from past data that around 1 in 4 skiers with reps are non-members. Not 5%. Are you disputing this? [I can extract relevant data on request]. The SCGB currently claims (to members) that it has around 34,000 members - the largest figure in its history. There are lower figures elsewhere (e.g. last autumn's annual report figure of 30,457 for 30 April 2012)
Your invitation is to respond simply and clearly to the above. And you're also welcome to clarify when the SCGB website will incorporate the top news service that you promised back in 2006, plus the personal messaging between members - promised by you in your election blurb and promised by the Club's magazine a month ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, still confusing me with someone else I see. Why don't you raise your points at the Club's AGM?
All I know about expenses for resort leading - or what used to be called repping - is that they have to be claimed for and backed up by receipts. Then there's the often mentioned arrangement whereby the resorts provide passes and accommodation, leaving just the cost of travel to be claimed or not claimed. Food, from what I've seen, is often provided free for the Leaders by a bar or hotel.
As for Freshtracks holidays, the Leaders are paid for through group discounts. So no cost there and the company actually makes a small profit which goes back into the club for the benefit of ALL the members.
Is there something you still don't understand? This is all common knowledge, the members know this and accept it.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Sun 24-03-13 15:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Oh yes, and although the allowances for Resort Leading (repping as you call it) are very welcome, they don't usually cover the full cost and the Leaders make up the difference out of their own pockets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fancy someone deleting posts, no doubt they are also looking to rectify the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
| Fancy someone deleting posts, no doubt they are also looking to rectify the situation. |
LOL
CG, I really think you need to calm down, don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| [b]PJ Ski / Gerry Aitken |
What evidence do you have that PJ and GA are one and the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that didn't get us very far.
Fellow readers will, no doubt, be as confused as I am ... about how the cost of the SCGB's resort operations can have risen from £85k to £263k, during a period of fairly level European airfares (over the past 20 years) ... if - as PJ Ski / Gerry Aitken suggests - the host resorts cover accommodation/liftpass/food costs etc. ...
... except that this contrasts with my understanding that some SCGB resorts are, in fact, not now covering the accommodation and food. Can any SCGB Leaders throw a clearer light on how much rent etc. is being paid?
Let's move on to ...
THE SCGB'S ENVIRONMENTAL FUND-RAISING / 'RESPECT THE MOUNTAIN' CAMPAIGN
In 2004 the Ski Club's marketing department started a high-profile campaign called 'Respect the Mountain'. In brief, this has involved a levy of 50p per member per annum within the subscription. There was a promotion of Respect the Mountain green wristbands, 35,000 of which were manufactured for sale at £2 each. At an early stage of the process (I was a member of the Club's Environmental Working Group for 3 years, and the minutes confirm that it was the group's function to recommend the funding targets) it was decided that about half the funds raised would finance a "long-term tree planting project". The Club's partners in the project were/are The Woodland Trust. All SCGB reps were required to wear green jackets for several years. For several years, the "long-term tree planting project" was the principal project mentioned when collecting SCGB membership subscriptions.
This page gives more details ...
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/respectthemountain/environment/skiclub.aspx#.UU8VSDc67HQ
Note the first figures quoted:
| Quote: |
The Respect the Mountain campaign has donated £34,354.22 to date. This money came from the following sources:
£6,816.22 was raised from the sale of Respect the Mountain wristbands
£27,538 was raised from the Club's membership environmental levy of 50p per subscription |
I believe that this money has now been raised over a period of 8-9 subscription years, during which the Club's 'paying units' have averaged about 18,000. So that's around £9000 per annum: say £70,000 minimum, plus revenue from the sales of Respect the Mountain merchandise.
The Woodland Trust expressed concern, about 2 years after the 'long-term tree planting project' was announced, that its SCGB payments had ceased. This is how the Club currently accounts for funds awarded to the Woodland Trust [pasted from the page link above]:
| Quote: |
| Woodland Trust tree planting scheme - £7500 donation to plant 600 indigenous forest trees in Britain. A further £1500 donated this year. |
"This year" needs to be clarified. I believe the £7500 was paid around 7 (or more) years ago.
All in all, bearing in mind that this was a public campaign involving (to some extent) merchandise sold to the general public, I think a proper income/expenditure account would be a positive idea. This was suggested to the SCGB's headquarters in November of last year. Obviously, for each financial year, one needs to know what was raised, and how the expenditure was allocated. Or maybe not - anyone have any views on this?
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 Sun 24-03-13 16:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
The Woodland Trust expressed concern, about 2 years after the 'long-term tree planting project' was announced, that its SCGB payments had ceased. This is how the Club currently accounts for funds awarded to the Woodland Trust [pasted from the page link above]:
| Quote: |
| Woodland Trust tree planting scheme - £7500 donation to plant 600 indigenous forest trees in Britain. A further £1500 donated this year. |
"This year" needs to be clarified. I believe the £7500 was paid around 7 (or more) years ago.
All in all, bearing in mind that this was a public campaign involving (to some extent) merchandise sold to the general public, I think a proper income/expenditure account would be a positive idea. This was suggested to the SCGB's headquarters in November of last year. Obviously, for each financial year, one needs to know what was raised, and how the expenditure was allocated. Or maybe not - anyone have any views on this? |
Comedy Goldsmith, yes - it's hard to see the wood for the trees!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| davidof wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| [b]PJ Ski / Gerry Aitken |
What evidence do you have that PJ and GA are one and the same? |
Are you expecting an answer to a direct question? You will not get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I know that beer has gone up by the same percentage in the 20 years specified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
Well, that didn't get us very far.
Fellow readers will, no doubt, be as confused as I am ... about how the cost of the SCGB's resort operations can have risen from £85k to £263k, during a period of fairly level European airfares (over the past 20 years) ... if - as PJ Ski / Gerry Aitken suggests - the host resorts cover accommodation/liftpass/food costs etc. ...
... except that this contrasts with my understanding that some SCGB resorts are, in fact, not now covering the accommodation and food. Can any SCGB Leaders throw a clearer light on how much rent etc. is being paid?
|
There you go, costs have gone up because 'some SCGB resorts are, in fact, not now covering the accommodation and food' and due to inflation, but then there is sponsorship money to bridge the gap. Clearly your least best friend back at the ski club does his resort leading in a resort where the resort covers lift pass and accommodation while the social hour bar supplies free food. That means he can only claim his travel allowance which his says he doesn't. Obviously a very cheap leader to deploy.
You seem to be implying that money is disappearing and/or not being properly accounted for. Can you confirm that this is what you're driving at? This is your chance to give a straight and unambiguous answer, for once in your life. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Filthyphil30k wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| [b]PJ Ski / Gerry Aitken |
What evidence do you have that PJ and GA are one and the same? |
Are you expecting an answer to a direct question? You will not get it. |
Indeed - and this is a corker for CG "Your invitation is to respond simply and clearly to the above." From the master evader of questions he'd prefer not to be asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| You seem to be implying that money is disappearing and/or not being properly accounted for. |
In relation to the Club's resort operations I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm quite willing to believe that the costs have genuinely tripled, but it's also obvious from the data above that the use of the service has fallen from around 15,000 skiers per winter to around 5,000 skiers (about 3,000 seem to be SCGB members). And the number of skiers recruited by reps has fallen by about 80% between 1992 and 2011 (despite the attraction of joining in the resort, where one gets an extended first year of membership).
As for the Club's environmental funds, clearly these haven't been accounted for properly, and the situation with the Woodland Trust requires clarification, but no doubt there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
| You seem to be implying that money is disappearing and/or not being properly accounted for. |
In relation to the Club's resort operations I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm quite willing to believe that the costs have genuinely tripled, but it's also obvious from the data above that the use of the service has fallen from around 15,000 skiers per winter to around 5,000 skiers (about 3,000 seem to be SCGB members). And the number of skiers recruited by reps has fallen by 80% between 1992 and 2011 (despite the attraction of joining in the resort, where one gets an extended first year of membership).
|
Groan, the cost hasn't tripled in real terms. Are you genuinely this stupid that you don't understand inflation? By my calculations the cost has gone up by 70% in real terms.
Recruitment is probably now led by the website, so any reasonable commentator would accept that as the reason why the leaders sign up less. As for numbers, when I see a big, round number with a c. in front of it, I regard it as inaccurate. My guess would be that the reporting in 92 was an overestimate. Whenever I see Leaders at their meeting points they seem to have plenty of people to ski with and often end up turning some away.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sun 24-03-13 17:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, more questions for you:
1. What do you want done with the leading service?
2. What do you want done with the holidays?
Your invitation is to respond simply and clearly to the above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, more questions for you:
1. What do you want done with the leading service?
2. What do you want done with the holidays?
Your invitation is to respond simply and clearly to the above. |
There is no point asking. Lots of others have made similar invitations which have simply been ignored. CG is not in the business of making constructive suggestions - he appears to be a "cup half empty" sort of bloke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DT68 wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, more questions for you:
1. What do you want done with the leading service?
2. What do you want done with the holidays?
Your invitation is to respond simply and clearly to the above. |
There is no point asking. Lots of others have made similar invitations which have simply been ignored. CG is not in the business of making constructive suggestions - he appears to be a "cup half empty" sort of bloke. |
Yes, it's a bit infuriating. He's set himself up as a short of party of opposition, yet refuses to play by the rules of opposition whereby he should offer alternatives and answer questions about those alternative.
Last edited by After all it is free on Sun 24-03-13 17:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
| You seem to be implying that money is disappearing and/or not being properly accounted for. |
In relation to the Club's resort operations I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm quite willing to believe that the costs have genuinely tripled, but it's also obvious from the data above that the use of the service has fallen from around 15,000 skiers per winter to around 5,000 skiers (about 3,000 seem to be SCGB members). And the number of skiers recruited by reps has fallen by 80% between 1992 and 2011 (despite the attraction of joining in the resort, where one gets an extended first year of membership).
|
Groan, the cost hasn't tripled in real terms. Are you genuinely this stupid that you don't understand inflation? By my calculations the cost has gone up by 70% in real terms.
... |
PJSki, there is no need to be quite so blunt. Inflation is a very difficult concept which some people have never even heard of, still less understand; CG may be one of those people.
CG, according to the datasets published by the ONS, RPIX (the inflation index which excludes mortgage interest payments) increased by about 77.5% between 1992 and 2012. This means that the cost of resort operations in 1992 would be about £151.6K at 2012 prices rather than the figure of £85.4K which you have chosen to use.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sun 24-03-13 17:52; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Yes, it's a bit infuriating. He's set himself up as a short of party of opposition, yet refuses to play by the rules of opposition whereby be he should offer alternatives and answer questions about those alternative. |
Au contraire, my dear fellow. He self-evidently admires Mr Miliband and is trying to emulate him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ