 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I can't really comment on SCGB, as I've never come across them.
|
Try giving Gerry a shot; he’d enjoy it (allegedly).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
when I Googled a question about skiing,
|
Out of interest, what was your question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Surely DG is intermittently the member of lowest standing? i.e. whenever they find they have again admitted him accidentally they boot him out.
The idea of having "standing" is itself pompous and distinctly more of 1903 than 2021.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AL9000 wrote: |
| Quote: |
when I Googled a question about skiing,
|
Out of interest, what was your question? |
It was to do with boots and boot flex for a beginner. The first few returns on Google were adverts (as normal). Snowheads came up as the first, what I considered to be "independent" response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Is a "member of low standing" a membership category defined in the SCGB's Articles of Association?
|
No - just invented by Council for me, I have letters from the flawed Chairman awarding me the unwanted badge. There is something curiously flattering to have a new category invented for you - but of course it reflects very badly on the SCGB "club" - shows it is anything but a club answerable to its members. The 'benefits' this special category comes with include paying the same membership fee but not being allowed to comment or even see the Facebook group created to engage members to Council (shows what that group is really about) and having repping 'slots' taken away from me. A punishment I neither deserve, nor is it really a punishment. Repping slots are a dubious benefit to 'volunteer' and pay (£100's nowadays) to look after fellow members with their wide ranging expectations, while taking on a significant legal risk with poor support from SCGB. Yes I have much enjoyed doing my bit in a healthy club, but SCGB is no longer that.
So is SCGB healthy? Is governance and accountability to members working? Does it have something to build back better from? When you consider that I have 20+ years a member, 10+ as a volunteer leader/rep (much 'liked' by members, thank you to those I have skied with), was voted onto Council by members despite CEO trying to rig the elections (with the disgraceful support of then Council) - and I was instrumental in overturning the CEO and Chairman running the club into the ground, allowing Council the opportunity to rebuild a member focussed club - but I was not allowed to help with that rebuilding, which was the real reason I stood for Council . Of course the new Chairman's delicate ego and control need should not have been protected at all cost, what was needed was a healthy Council answerable to members. "Member of low standing" is a category that strangely was not applied to the CEO (instead he was paid an extra £60k of member's money to go quietly), nor Council who covered up and ran without management accounts, nor those that took paid trips at members expense, nor those that appointed a CEO in breach of articles, nor those that lost £4m of members money, nor those that misled members or rigged the elections etc ... no it gets applied to me, a person who did so much to stop the rot, full of ideas and energy for how to rebuild. It seems the new, then unelected Chairman did not want anyone to challenge his authority on Council - so demanded I go or he would resign, his second threat to 'do as I say or I resign' in a few weeks. Council asked us both to stay, TCD refused to work with me (I don't know why) and then Council fell into line despite it being a breach of SCGB articles, Company law and the 4 year term of an elected member ... so sure, SCGB don't have a challenging, oversight voice on Council, nor my ideas and energy to build back better, and don't have challenging comments on their carefully censored Facebook page ... but does that make for a healthy Club? Council wanted to kill off the 'past present future' members group on Facebook (please join that if you are not already there), so they pick on me. In simple terms this is a sick 'club', and Council should be ashamed of their behaviour.
When you see how much members continue to be prejudiced for the sake of propping up the holiday Company while being under-informed by a 'carefully communicating' Council I think you will understand why I for one think it unlikely SCGB will turn itself around. It would need a positive respect for members, differences of view and the need to change. This is all SCGB politics which mean it seems doomed, tragic to those of us that once loved the Club. I share this here only for those that still hold out hope of SCGB turning around.
I'm now interested in whether there is need and opportunity for something better designed for the 2020's and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@pisteoff, There is definitely opportunity in capturing all the many hundreds of members who will be leaving as their needs remain unmet or they wake up and realise they are being legged over. The question is what do you have to offer them and is it worth it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I've had a look round to get the Blue Sky Skiing Club off the ground. Since my "club hut" suggestion gathered some interest, I've looked at the numbers (not looked very hard mind you).
A 3-4 bedroom apartment is about £15k/season. We need 3 of these to start (I'm choosing Chamonix, Tignes and Les Contamines to cover hard core, large area and great family skiing, with Cham & Les C deliberately chosen to be easy for short trips). Call it £50k cost base.
If we assume each apartment sleeps 10 and is half utilised for all of a 120 night/season (optimistic ?), that's 1800 apartment-nights. At £15/night, that's £27k.
If each member wants to use 15-20 nights then BSSC can have about 150 members, so to cover the £50k cost, we need £150/member annual membership fee (in addition to £10/night).
Would that attract people? Does admin have a spare £50k to start the ball rolling? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
£300 for 10 nights flexible bunking around those places sounds ok. How do you stop people inviting their mates in, hogging peak week bookings or simply partying to the detriment of other members?
These are not insurmountable - many ski leases in the US run amicably on such basis and the better ones have an interview process to assess compatibility (everyone wants the newbies with means who are keen to have the status of a place in a ski pad but who won't necessarily use it very often - not unlike SCGB psychology  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, inviting their mates in would be obvious to anyone else staying there, so you'd get "caught" if I decided to make a last minute trip thinking that only DoTM was in residence, to find you'd invited all 6 of your "nieces" to stay. Apart from that, just like any club hut, there's a degree of responsibility placed on the club members not to "ruin" their own club.
Booking could be done by random lottery, with people choosing say their top 5 nights in order of their lottery ranking. You wouldn't be choosing exclusive use, just getting first choice of bed(room). Pick a high season week, and there's gonna be full bedrooms and 4 people on the lounge floor as well. Pick Tues-Thurs in mid-Jan in Tignes, you might have the place to yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@snowdave, To be fair it would likely be my Russian mates along with my "nieces" Yes I suspect digitally a lot could be done to protect the system from abuse. I like the "draft" system you suggest too - provided it happened early enough to correspond to cheapish flight availability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
@eblunt, maybe that's a better idea - sell it by "shares" which entitle you to that proportion of the total availability.
Come to think of it, maybe I've hit the big time here. Holiday accommodation, split into weekly chunks, sold on the basis that you get a "share" of the total "time". Now, what to call it....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| snowdave wrote: |
@eblunt, maybe that's a better idea - sell it by "shares" which entitle you to that proportion of the total availability.
Come to think of it, maybe I've hit the big time here. Holiday accommodation, split into weekly chunks, sold on the basis that you get a "share" of the total "time". Now, what to call it....? |
Hardsell property scam? Millstone? Nice little earner (assuming you pocket the annual "management fees")?
More seriously on a club basis I can see that works, if you limit the size of the share, at least in tiers. I suspect no one would want people hanging around for 90+ days but maybe a 45 day "share" might be the limit then 30, 15 or 7. That gives you enough diversity in members that there isn't a gaping hole when a few whales move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Just repeating this for the spectacular vision of the future from those long ago days of late 2018 cos it cracks me up and SCGB are too lazy to take this embarrassing crap down... |
The video is a confusing mish-mash of posh white people skiing and doing other mountain related things.
If anyone manages to watch all the way through, the very last section does explain the purpose of the
otherwise unrelated material: the company aimed to become an all-year-round profit centre, encompassing
maintain sports from cycling through climbing to dry slope racing.
Considering it's a subscription based company that seems rather odd in itself.
To suggest sports like summer Alpine climbing are somehow waiting to be taken over by posh skiers
in search of profits is outstanding in both ignorance and arrogance.
It's very odd. What was the purpose of the video, exactly? Who was the target audience? |
It’s a club that’s owned by its member and run on a beak even, not for profit, basis. Not sure why you are trying to give an impression it’s a commercial enterprise. And why bring race and class into it?
Too white and posh could easily apply to uk skiers and borders and to snowHeads in particular, what with all those Archers fans.
It’s almost as if you see the Ski Club as a massive threat to the commercials side of snowHeads that has to be attacked and misrepresented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Quote: |
It's very odd. What was the purpose of the video, exactly? Who was the target audience?
|
Yes, it was quite remarkable - I remember being one of a very few that challenged the then CEO on the nonsense. It shows how much SCGB lost its way, and Council (the Board) was unable to control / oversee the purpose of the club. This led to about £4m of losses and nonsense - including acquiring Mountain Tracks and pumping money into misguided over ambition and marketing vanity (and insider 'perks') which did nothing for existing members. This all comes from having a volunteer board (Council) lacking experience and ability to oversee management and Chairman, self interest and bizarre obsession (for a members club) with being a holiday company - and Chairmen (and CEO) who feel they can operate without reference to proper governance, accountability and the membership. Financial oversight has been a disgrace - this is the only issue that has been addressed in part, albeit without openness, that's not enough. This has all been hidden by a misguided desire to hide the dirty washing and avoid the challenging issues brought about by a changing world.
Sadly this continues. @Gerry, is to be congratulated for being the only Director / Council member willing to engage (other than myself - I was thrown of Council and labelled a member of low standing (a category invented for me, I guess I could be flattered) for daring to continue to engage and challenge) ... sadly he then went native ("Chairman is king") .. It isn't just engagement that is needed, there is also a need to build positively on what a wide membership base would want, and stop protecting all too precious self interest of HQ. Council needed strong voices - and still does - instead the Chairman and a weak Council again demands sycophants. Lack of experience means this is not challenged, and we end up with a an (ex) Club that no longer serves its members, is unaccountable, and is irrelevant for the under 50's. I hope this changes, but have lost all belief that it can.
My own view is this is the failure of SCGB - nothing to do with whether a ski club can work. What would a 2020's and beyond, GB skier, resort focussed, member club look like? I do not believe this need will be served by SCGB, hence the thoughts and challenge here. Snowheads does somewhat fill a hole and I admire the way the forum and all of you engage - the question is whether there is room for something more, particularly when it comes to in resort club support of holidaymakers. I think so. |
Listen, my old mate, the next time we meet in person I’m going to look you right in the eyes and call you a liar. Question is, what will you do after I’ve said that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| snowHeads is definitely a commercial business that is designed to made its owner a profit. The Ski Club is a not for profit member owned club. |
and
| Gerry wrote: |
| It’s a club that’s owned by its member and run on a beak even, not for profit, basis. Not sure why you are trying to give an impression it’s a commercial enterprise. |
In order to be 'not for profit' you firstly need to know how to make a profit. 'Not for profit' does not mean break even or make a catastrophic loss. Not for profit isn't the same as non-profit either. Of course SCGB is commercial 
| Gerry wrote: |
@Dave of the Marmottes, well, the dates don’t lie. After I’d left council in November 2015 they:
1) Sold the White House but NOT within parameters previously set by Council. |
Ah yes, the oddly named and secretive Jersey-based trust called Caligula (since renamed), which has no named shareholders or contact information. To any outsider the deal did not look at all transparent. So what were those parameters, how were they breached, who on the Council conducted the negotiations and who bought the building (ie verifiable human beings)? At some point these questions will need answering.
| Gerry wrote: |
| Your ‘facts’ are wrong. Actually the Ski Club was talking to BASI about possibly making the Reps Course a recognised leading qualification. |
There was that too. You were clearly kept out of the loop on the bigger plan.
| Gerry wrote: |
| I wasn’t convinced about Line S at the time but I take collective responsibility for it. What I should have done was taken unpaid leave and gone and studied marketing for several years, then travelled back in time to stop Line S. |
You don't understand the role and responsibilities of being a Company Director. You don't need to know anything about marketing. A modicum of critical thinking, the ability to ask questions, use a calculator - there's a start.
| Gerry wrote: |
| You’ll have to interrogate Colin over what he said. |
Having pointed the issue out to you, a Director, YOU need to be looking into it, not me. Again, you don't understand the role and responsibilities of being a Company Director. Ken P may have been the one to be prosecuted but, next time, it could easily be an Officer of the Company, especially in the case of corporate manslaughter for example.
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Surely that goes back to CST, who most members seem to think was a good club leader, and Freshtracks being her TO that she'd successfully flogged to SCGB. I've always been mildly interested in understanding how there weren't conflicts of interest there? Or at least her appointment as CEO was the point SCGB turned from being a club to a glorified TO? |
AFAIK, leading up to the acquisition, Fresh Tracks was a very small, loss-making venture and probably valueless. Yet again, some transparency around the transaction would have been only right and proper. It was pretty much absorbed into the club, along with it's owner, in one go. Bit of a golden hello you might say. Perhaps a win:win up until the point the financials went off course, Johnny moved on and the world shut down.
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Just repeating this for the spectacular vision of the future from those long ago days of late 2018 cos it cracks me up and SCGB are too lazy to take this embarassing crap down |
Oh dear, I cannot un-see that now, thanks very much. You are right, at the core of their troubles is laziness and, a phrase I've used many times, "nobody loves it". From the outside I have seen no evidence that there is a new GM in charge. Where's the energy?
| pisteoff wrote: |
| Quote: |
Is a "member of low standing" a membership category defined in the SCGB's Articles of Association?
|
No - just invented by Council for me, I have letters from the flawed Chairman awarding me the unwanted badge. etc etc |
Yes, despite anything Gerry is about to say, you were not dealt with in a democratic way and it was a slap in the face to those Members who cast their votes in your favour. The ex-CEO told me he found you to be a handful in meetings but I take that to mean you were assertive and maybe asked the kind of uncomfortable questions I might ask. You should have let the unelected Chairman resign and democratically elect someone who can do the job without going into a huff. If you go look at his other club, Alpine Club, where he is Hon Treasurer (not just plain old Treasure, oh no, it's an Hon dontcha know), you'll see some parallels - an outdated website (with no current SSL so it's insecure), poorly updated news, and a stuffy old way of applying for membership to make sure you 'fit' - clubs like these are dinosaurs, you are better off out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
[b]@Pruman] You forgot to mention the alien abduction Freshtracks holiday that no ones comes home from and the fact that when I was four I walked on some grass that had a very clear sign that said ‘Keep of the Grass’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
an outdated website (with no current SSL so it's insecure), poorly updated news
|
To me it looks like a pretty standard Joomla website that any club should put out. The news only reflects what the members send them.
| Quote: |
Alpine Club, where he is Hon Treasurer (not just plain old Treasure, oh no, it's an Hon dontcha know)
|
That bit means that they are unpaid. Most members clubs have honorary Chair, Secretaries and Treasurers. They may have professional bookkeepers etc also in the club, but the hon treasurer is an unpaid member of the club. Have a look at the Sport England Club Matters website. It is esential reading for anyone wanting to set up a sports club https://www.sportenglandclubmatters.com/. May I humbly suggest that anyone thinking of setting up their own ski club consults these pages.
I have a feeling the term "club" is being abused. For example a lot of top "football clubs" are not clubs at all but businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
Listen, my old mate, the next time we meet in person I’m going to look you right in the eyes and call you a liar. Question is, what will you do after I’ve said that? |
Presumably the time honoured SCGB dispute resolution procedure:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| pisteoff wrote: |
Yes, it was quite remarkable - I remember being one of a very few that challenged the then CEO on the nonsense. It shows how much SCGB lost its way, and Council (the Board) was unable to control |
Listen, my old mate, the next time we meet in person I’m going to look you right in the eyes and call you a liar. Question is, what will you do after I’ve said that? |
And there we have it again - the primary reason many people on sHs would not consider joining the SCGB - a barroom bully with schoolboy threats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| pisteoff wrote: |
Yes, it was quite remarkable - I remember being one of a very few that challenged the then CEO on the nonsense. It shows how much SCGB lost its way, and Council (the Board) was unable to control |
Listen, my old mate, the next time we meet in person I’m going to look you right in the eyes and call you a liar. Question is, what will you do after I’ve said that? |
And there we have it again - the primary reason many people on sHs would not consider joining the SCGB - a barroom bully with schoolboy threats. |
Tom is physically bigger than me though and it is actually he who is the bully. He was a total bully towards the staff and members of a council which is why he was voted off.
Like most bullies though, he has nowhere to go when people stand up to him. Well, of course he came here for comfort where even a nasty, vindictive liar like him will be welcomed into the fold by you as long as they hate the Ski Club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Nasty vindictive liar". Oh dear Gerry, oh dear. And you a Director of the Ski Club - happy to libel members. It is this kind of out of control 'self protection' of Council over the club and its members which is so unhealthy.
I am none of those things, however it is not about me. For you it is about SCGB and how it can turn itself around to make itself relevant, exciting and inclusive. I'm done with SCGB politics - too broken
In my view SCGB cannot succeed with a Council that behave as it does - quite apart from the challenge and baggage that has to be dealt with. So SCGB is only relevant to this thread in that it shows what doesn't work for club relevant to the 2020's and beyond (unless of course there are enough on Council who do want to pick up the baton positively)
Hence the thought that a clean sheet of paper is more likely to yield a club that can work in the interests of its members ... and can attract and grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@snowdave, re snowhut idea. I like the idea, although probably not quite a personal fit for the type of skiing I do. It could form part of something bigger/wider appeal?
The hut idea would though presumably only appeal to a very small slice of the British ski market?
In my mind there is a role for something that provides the in resort presence which would provide a hub for holidaymakers looking for eg more adventure, wider ski group, safe off piste groups, someone to ski with, evening meets etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
@snowdave, re snowhut idea. I like the idea, although probably not quite a personal fit for the type of skiing I do. It could form part of something bigger/wider appeal?
The hut idea would though presumably only appeal to a very small slice of the British ski market?
In my mind there is a role for something that provides the in resort presence which would provide a hub for holidaymakers looking for eg more adventure, wider ski group, safe off piste groups, someone to ski with, evening meets etc |
In Les Deux Alpes it’s called the Red Frog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pisteoff, I don't think it's a hut in the alpine hut sense i.e. up the mountain ,more like renting a chalet to serve like a UK climbing club hut, providing accomodation near to the action, probably cooking meals together etc.
And could serve as a hub for other members to drop by for a beer or a coffee and see if anyone was up for skiing together. I mean that's not unlike any group trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| pisteoff wrote: |
@snowdave, re snowhut idea. I like the idea, although probably not quite a personal fit for the type of skiing I do. It could form part of something bigger/wider appeal?
The hut idea would though presumably only appeal to a very small slice of the British ski market?
In my mind there is a role for something that provides the in resort presence which would provide a hub for holidaymakers looking for eg more adventure, wider ski group, safe off piste groups, someone to ski with, evening meets etc |
In Les Deux Alpes it’s called the Red Frog. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@Pruman,
| Quote: |
You should have let the unelected Chairman resign and democratically elect someone who can do the job without going into a huff.
|
Assuming "you" means SCGB Council - completely agree, that is very perceptive. Sadly instead Council I think was simply too nervous about the challenges, their own culpability and inexperience and rather tamely fell into line as demanded by TCD, ignoring their fiduciary and representative duties - much as previous Council had done. My view is that the SCGB is back where it was, with an unaccountable and under-equipped Council operating ineffectively and in breach of Club governance rules and needs, - and a Club in terminal decline unable to face the real challenges it has. The one improvement is the new Chairman is keeping an eye on finances, however like his predecessor he lacks a credible vision and has a personal control need and ego that means Council reports to him, not visa versa - he demands compliance and secrecy, so members just get a rose tinted view of what is going on. Without effective governance the club is not in the hands of its members. As a £6m holiday company it needs professional Directors, as a members club it needs a focus on members - in practice it does both jobs poorly - in no small part because Council is made up of elected, volunteer members largely without experience of boards, small companies and change - and all too many of which have little / no time for the serious work needed. The holiday company is loss making and risky, this is likely to continue, meaning that members end up subsidising something which only 10% use. This could be addressed by putting holidays out to a third party (still to Freshtracks design). Then SCGB focussing on member benefits, and making the club relevant to the those in younger age brackets, which would need a big reduction in membership fee and much better offer in France. I was arguing for this, now with me out of the way Council has fallen into the trap of 'protecting the mother ship, protecting HQ, protecting staff' (which is now Freshtracks in their mind, it is after all the vast majority of turnover). The Council sub-committee looking at this even bizarrely argued keeping Freshtracks in house meant profits could be used to subsidise the member offer. Naïve, and dangerous, but no-one Council with the guts to challenge. Healthy debate and fresh thinking is needed, it is not going to come. Truth is members subsidise overhead, inefficiency and a 4 month a year holiday company, while taking on significant risk
Still for me this thread is not about what SCGB is struggling with, but about what a clean sheet of paper approach would look like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| philwig wrote: |
| ... Considering it's a subscription based company ... |
It’s a club that’s owned by its member and run on a beak even, not for profit, basis.
Not sure why you are trying to give an impression it’s a commercial enterprise. ... |
SCGB Ltd is a company. It charges members a subscription. ."a subscription based company" feels pretty accurate.
----
My point was specifically regarding the 2018 SGB Ltd video which apparently describes their business strategy through to 2021.
The video shows a strategy to make money from the SCGB Ltd customer base all through the calendar year.
That would be illogical for a winter-sports members' club which needs simply to break even, but entirely reasonable
for example for a commercial organisation with a fixed cost base.
The strategy failed, but it's curious why they'd need to even contemplate such a thing.
Do any SCGB Ltd [ex-]customers remember why they voted to have the SCGB expand into their non-skiing activities?
If they didn't do that, then what made the directors attempt such a thing, precisely? What was the money going to be spent on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@philwig, Maybe some parallels with what has been going on at Nominet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| And there we have it again - the primary reason many people on sHs would not consider joining the SCGB - a barroom bully with schoolboy threats. |
Yes, agreed, but I would definitely pay the entrance fee to see the Tom & Gerry dust up, Queensbury Rules and all that of course.
His posting activity has a wonderful predictability to it. He goes silent for ages and ages yet clearly reads it all. Then something triggers him enough to reappear and he starts with fairly measured responses. At this stage the other Council Members start climbing behind the sofa. Then he gets asked a few more difficult questions, which he ignores like Boris at PMQs, preferring to deflect instead with child-like playground digs, and then eventually and inevitably loses it, upgrades the insults and starts acting more like a hard-as-nails mob henchman. I wish I had a psychology degree. He thinks everyone here hates the Ski Club but I don't think they care a jot either way - it's more a case of watching a slow-moving posh car crash.
| pisteoff wrote: |
@Pruman,
| Quote: |
You should have let the unelected Chairman resign and democratically elect someone who can do the job without going into a huff.
|
Assuming "you" means SCGB Council - completely agree, that is very perceptive. |
Not really perceptive. Over the years of business life I've had people say to me the likes of "I want this (more money, better territory etc) or I'm leaving" and my response was always the same "bye". Holding people to ransom just ain't cool. Giving in just hands them more power as you have witnessed first hand. And it never ever ever ends well.
On another subject, my understanding was that the new GM was to stand down from his role at Mountain Trade Network. He did indeed resign as a Director of Mountain Business 365 Limited on 1st July but not of Listex Ltd. I have been forwarded an email, sent by the Club, which says:
| Quote: |
The Ski Club of Great Britain and Mountain Trade Network invites you to attend a brand new winter season celebration on September 6 at The White Haus, London.
This exclusive event will kick-start the winter season for travel journalists and the winter sports industry, with food and drink served during a relaxed and informal evening with friends and colleagues. |
So he's swapped hats but, seems to me, all a bit incestuous and no doubt The Club are picking up the bill for industry schmoozing at a time when they should be totally concentrated on revamping the membership offering, getting some energy back into recruitment and communication and loads of other customer-focussed stuff previously discussed, yet here they are dropping back into the comfort zone of irrelevant industry status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| philwig wrote: |
| ... Considering it's a subscription based company ... |
It’s a club that’s owned by its member and run on a beak even, not for profit, basis.
Not sure why you are trying to give an impression it’s a commercial enterprise. ... |
SCGB Ltd is a company. It charges members a subscription. ."a subscription based company" feels pretty accurate.
----
My point was specifically regarding the 2018 SGB Ltd video which apparently describes their business strategy through to 2021.
The video shows a strategy to make money from the SCGB Ltd customer base all through the calendar year.
That would be illogical for a winter-sports members' club which needs simply to break even, but entirely reasonable
for example for a commercial organisation with a fixed cost base.
The strategy failed, but it's curious why they'd need to even contemplate such a thing.
Do any SCGB Ltd [ex-]customers remember why they voted to have the SCGB expand into their non-skiing activities?
If they didn't do that, then what made the directors attempt such a thing, precisely? What was the money going to be spent on? |
I belong to a few member owned club and they all have one thing in common, I have to pay a sub to remain a member.
Again, you are trying to paint the Ski Club’s members as customers simply because we pay a subscription. In reality it’s very simple, the Ski Club is owned by its members.
By contrast, snowHeads is owned by one person and the ‘members’ are simply customers or potential customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Gerry, please stop going on about Snowheads and just accept that SCGB customers = SCGB members. I cannot buy a Freshtracks holiday without becoming a member.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| Not really perceptive. Over the years of business life I've had people say to me the likes of "I want this (more money, better territory etc) or I'm leaving" and my response was always the same "bye". Holding people to ransom just ain't cool. |
They're not holding you to ransom or threatening to leave, they're asking you for recognition of their efforts. If you can't see that you don't deserve to be a senior manager. You're supposed to develop the people below you, not show them the door.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sat 7-08-21 21:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread seems to have degenerated into a fractious argy-bargy about SCGB management, which has its own thread. It started off as an interesting discussion about what a new Ski Club would look like starting from now.
Surprisingly, a lot of the discussion has been about commercial activities which aren't the essence of a "club". If you want insurance go to an insurer, if you want package holidays go to a tour operator - they will have a lot more expertise and already have the necessary legal protections. What a club should provide is the friendship and common cause. Snowheads isn't set up as a club, but if it was (and probably even without being) it could provide genuine benefit in putting people in contact who are in the same resort at the same time, including those knowledgeable about the place who might be able to advise those there for the first time. Maybe linking with people you might find it fun to ski with. And generally providing friendly advice on all manner of things, as it already does.
And if it did become a membership organisation, perhaps it could negotiate modest discounts for members with insurance or travel companies which fitted its ethos - but without having the cost of setting up those commercial operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@j b, hear hear
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Raceplate wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
| Not really perceptive. Over the years of business life I've had people say to me the likes of "I want this (more money, better territory etc) or I'm leaving" and my response was always the same "bye". Holding people to ransom just ain't cool. |
They're not holding you to ransom or threatening to leave, they're asking you for recognition of their efforts. If you can't see that you don't deserve to be a senior manager. You're supposed to develop the people below you, not show them the door. |
Was he ever a senior manager though? The impression I get is of a middle manager, journeyman who sacked lots of cleaners when they ask for something over the minimum.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sat 7-08-21 22:47; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| j b wrote: |
This thread seems to have degenerated into a fractious argy-bargy about SCGB management, which has its own thread. It started off as an interesting discussion about what a new Ski Club would look like starting from now.
Surprisingly, a lot of the discussion has been about commercial activities which aren't the essence of a "club". If you want insurance go to an insurer, if you want package holidays go to a tour operator - they will have a lot more expertise and already have the necessary legal protections. What a club should provide is the friendship and common cause. Snowheads isn't set up as a club, but if it was (and probably even without being) it could provide genuine benefit in putting people in contact who are in the same resort at the same time, including those knowledgeable about the place who might be able to advise those there for the first time. Maybe linking with people you might find it fun to ski with. And generally providing friendly advice on all manner of things, as it already does.
And if it did become a membership organisation, perhaps it could negotiate modest discounts for members with insurance or travel companies which fitted its ethos - but without having the cost of setting up those commercial operations. |
You start by suggesting that one of the important aspects of joining forces with other people to form a club i.e collective bargaining power, isn’t all that important, then you go on to suggest that it might be a good idea. You seem slightly as odds with yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Does it come with a reduced annual membership fee? 
