 Poster: A snowHead
|
100 posts about red cord then... Happy now?
and virtually every poster on your Braehead thread disagreed with you and said it was "their slope, their rules".
I see you've gone ad hom now. So I'm out of this thread before the threats start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
No, just ad hoc ... as always. Goodbye, doc (he'll be back)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
thegnomewithnoname, you mean that time of year for repeats on telly? Is your scriptwriter looking for a whip-round? We pay £12 per video on the New Ski Club of Great Britain chat forum, in a choice of Alpine currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
...not bad... 62 pages to reach Pocwin's law
( Pocwin's law (also known as Pocwin's Rule of winter-sport helmet analogies or Pocwin's Law of ski helmet analogies[1][2]) is an assertion made by Mike Pocwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Ski Helmets or winter tyres (sometimes referred to as Goodyearwin's law) 1."[2][3] In other words, Pocwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Helmets and their claimed safety levels. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| flangesax wrote: |
| ...not bad... 62 pages |
It's the rate of views that counts too. The views hit 130,000 (over 11.5 months - say 350 days) at about 15:00 yesterday.
As of now - 15 hours later - they are 131,150 views.
It's like a black cab with the meter running, and the driver revving the engine all night, thinking it ups the fare. It certainly does, on the time basis, but I have to admit that the cab isn't going anywhere.
[/end of black cab analogy]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flangesax, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, y'now the view counter isn't counting unique views, right? And cutting and pasting other peoples stuff you find on the telegraph website or other internet crevice and passing comment doesn't make you a journalist, no matter what "Journalists" may say. It makes you a 'commentard' in the common parliance.
And in the honour of Ctrl-C journalism...
| Quote: |
| A man is not finished when he is defeated, a man is finished when he quits |
No wonder you're fond of Nixon.
flangesax, award yourself 3 internets in honour of your Pocwins law. *light applause*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooo, get yooo.
I've never claimed to the Wall Street Journal of East Finchley, y' know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Time to ... err ... 'follow the money' ?
On an earlier page of this thread I drew attention to the SCGB Environmental Fund/'Respect the Mountain'. This is a quasi-charitable aspect of the Skeeb's operations, which was set up in 2005 to finance a 'long-term tree-planting project' and other worthy environmental ideas to mitigate (in a way) some of the negative impact of our sport.
This fund has collected 50p per SCGB member (plus merchandise sales) over (I think) 9 subscription years since its inception. At a guess, £80k to £90k total income, over the years - a very rough guesstimate.
This link is a summary of income and expenditure to date, which shows that at least £40,000 appears to be unaccounted for:
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/respectthemountain/environment/skiclub.aspx#.UphiTyff5xU
Those are the 'pennies'. What about the big money?
On the right is the full SCGB income and expenditure breakdown for 2012-3. Very big figures, dwarfing the turnover of snowH eads, particularly in terms of subscription income, I'd imagine.
In essence, one can see where the money goes ... but what is it really being spent on? And what is being achieved?
This is the topic for today ... bean counters!
[Yes I know we've bean there done that, but there was little response last 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.
|
CG - what do you think the British skier is in 2013/14?
I ask because you seem to be very proud of the history of the SCGB and convey an impression that you think current management are betraying this heritage through such grubby things as commercial activities and alignments, and self serving on freebies.
I'm inclined to believe that the SCGB is a dying beast because it doesn't have anything truly special to offer in the 21st century but I'm quite open to others holding the opinion that it is valuable to them for the clubbiness it offers in rep served resorts. Beyond that I don't really see the point. Interesting though that less formal "clubs" such as SCUK and sHs can be established in the internet era and go from strength to strength.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does that document show quite clearly that Leaders are part of a commercial operation?
I guess those stopping the leaders in Les Arcs would find that quite interesting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
boredsurfin, I was thinking that myself, how are SCGB able to get around the hosting ban in France?
I reckon that SCGB are missing a trick here; could they not use the leaders to provide hosting services to T/Os by charging clients a nominal fee to become 'SCGB Club Members lite'? Give access to leaders for one resort, access to the forum for a year, quarterly bulletin email. This would boost membership for SCGB, giving the club access to new blood, who could potentially become full members, while allowing T/Os to still offer hosting services indirectly to their cutomers, without breaking the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| CG - what do you think the British skier is in 2013/14? |
Not much different to normal. Possibly quite a few are sitting at home these days, wishing they could afford it.
Most skiers are oblivious to all the stuff we discuss endlessly. They catch a return flight/train each winter, slide around, go home again.
They're probably on Facebook, if they're online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| I'm inclined to believe that the SCGB is a dying beast because it doesn't have anything truly special to offer in the 21st century but I'm quite open to others holding the opinion that it is valuable to them for the clubbiness it offers in rep served resorts. Beyond that I don't really see the point. Interesting though that less formal "clubs" such as SCUK and sHs can be established in the internet era and go from strength to strength. |
This is the worry. Some may be aware but think it will see them out.
Addressing the problem is not easy as the club keeps ticking over. Some members may be resistant to change. Some are not particularly interested from one winter to the next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
As witnessed in East Finchely earlier today ......
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Well I will never ever go near the ski club website again after the way users of the forum were treated all those years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
| CG - what do you think the British skier is in 2013/14? |
Not much different to normal. Possibly quite a few are sitting at home these days, wishing they could afford it.
Most skiers are oblivious to all the stuff we discuss endlessly. They catch a return flight/train each winter, slide around, go home again.
They're probably on Facebook, if they're online. |
So probably not that interested in the tradition of British skiing in the alps, not interested in some archaic "club" that might have once been relevant in the days before mass market TOs and direct booking. Probably just people who happen to enjoy a pleasant enough pastime or holiday. So not really betrayed by or influenced by what a tiny number of people think at a club where the vast majority of members are wholly passive (or in the case of family members even ignorant that they are in the headcount).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
True ... hence the obsession with the discount card theory, but that's a bit old hat now.
However, I'd contend that a 'club for true skiers, interested in the nitty gritty and gory history' is still a very relevant concept. This is an activity with a lot of depth to it ... not just sliding+apres.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
boredsurfin, I was thinking that myself, how are SCGB able to get around the hosting ban in France?
I reckon that SCGB are missing a trick here; could they not use the leaders to provide hosting services to T/Os by charging clients a nominal fee to become 'SCGB Club Members lite'? Give access to leaders for one resort, access to the forum for a year, quarterly bulletin email. This would boost membership for SCGB, giving the club access to new blood, who could potentially become full members, while allowing T/Os to still offer hosting services indirectly to their cutomers, without breaking the law. |
This is the best idea in the whole thread so far. The SCGB could genuinely help members of the British skiing community by reaching out to the TOs, offering to provide a guiding service for them in resort, and allowing members to see what they could be getting up front. No charge required - the guides are there already, they have a captive audience for selling the benefits of SCGB membership, and as a result should be able to bring people in to the club and potentially the other services/products/stuff that the SCGB has to offer.
TOs get to advertise "ski guiding in partnership with the SCGB" and the French authorities don't have to worry about inexperienced TO guides leading people around the mountain and getting paid for it, and the general public should get a quality of guide that they previously haven't got, who have a reasonable chance of knowing their way around the mountain and being good enough skiiers to be able to guide even the most experienced groups on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Panda, I'll say it's a bad idea. SCGB members pay for the service - they'll soon get pee'd off if their leader is busy looking after TO clients. In big resorts there might be half a dozen TO ski hosts - SCGB would need to suddenly staff up with many more volunteers to cope. I just can't see it being a goer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller,
But the TO's or the temporary memberships will be subsidizing it. It may well end up reducing the costs to the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Ok, so what if they did 'lite' and 'full' members in the morning and 'full' members only (f'nar) in afternoon sessions, taking more challenging routes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the SCGB sells ski holidays, why would a rival operator want clients disappearing into their hands?
It's like Tesco welcoming the idea of a Sainsbury's rep showing Tesco customers around the Sainsbury's aisles. This is utter lunacy, of a quality I don't necessarily expect on snowHeads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| musher wrote: |
Bode Swiller,
But the TO's or the temporary memberships will be subsidizing it. It may well end up reducing the costs to the club. |
I suspect that the average SCGB "volunteer" rep is on a rather cushier package than the TO employee piste donkey. I had understood that they did deals with resort tourist offices to defray some of the costs but I suspect it is unlikely that this largesse would extend to a platoon of greenjackets (or whatever they've decided to wear now).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| musher wrote: |
Bode Swiller,
But the TO's or the temporary memberships will be subsidizing it. It may well end up reducing the costs to the club. |
Why would you buy a full membership if you could always rock up each year and buy a temp one?
Why would you continue paying for a full membership if etc... zzzz ?
How would temp members know how to bray?
So many questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
Since the SCGB sells ski holidays, why would a rival operator want clients disappearing into their hands?
It's like Tesco welcoming the idea of a Sainsbury's rep showing Tesco customers around the Sainsbury's aisles. This is utter lunacy, of a quality I don't necessarily expect on snowHeads. |
Steady.
Fresh tracks is a niche player not a volume operator. So it would be more like a concession in a big department store.
Anyway, the real danger is the leader service would be under more scrutiny and subject to attack if it were seen as a born again hosting service for the big holiday companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Talking of the SCGB leader service ... I've posted up those revenue and expenditure accounts (above) twice, but no one seems to be interested in the huge numbers avalanching down the page ...
Extracting from the figures ...
| Quote: |
Revenue
Ski Club Freshtracks turnover .......... £2,190,984
Cost of sales
Cost of Freshtracks holidays ........... £1,869,091
Expenditure - member services
Ski Club Freshtracks costs ................. £177,367
Leaders service ............................... £241,320 |
Could someone explain the significance of "Ski Club Freshtracks costs" broken out from "Costs of Freshtracks holidays". What does the former (£177k) refer to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
My first reaction was that the numbers aren't very big at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I thought you were a Thatcher fan. You should be counting the pennies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I am and I do. 
But that's a pretty small-scale business. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but those aren't attention-grabbing numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
P.S. The stated number (2013 annual report) of Freshtracks holidays sold last winter was 2077 (i.e. approximately 1 holiday per 15 SCGB members, though probably quite a few buy more than one trip) ... at an average of around £1000 per head, I suppose ... collating with the revenue figure above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| I've posted up those revenue and expenditure accounts (above) twice, but no one seems to be interested i |
Sounds like you're finally getting the message
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Not necessarily. JK Rowling was rejected by 12 publishers before she got any interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
Talking of the SCGB leader service ... I've posted up those revenue and expenditure accounts (above) twice, but no one seems to be interested in the huge numbers avalanching down the page ...
Extracting from the figures ...
| Quote: |
Revenue
Ski Club Freshtracks turnover .......... £2,190,984
Cost of sales
Cost of Freshtracks holidays ........... £1,869,091
Expenditure - member services
Ski Club Freshtracks costs ................. £177,367
Leaders service ............................... £241,320 |
Could someone explain the significance of "Ski Club Freshtracks costs" broken out from "Costs of Freshtracks holidays". What does the former (£177k) refer to? |
IANASCGBA but at a guess Cost of Sales represents the costs of providing the member holidays, SCF costs represents other Sales General and Admin costs - promotion, HQ staff, "free" places for reps? etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, Here is a scenario for you to ponder. With the increasing membership age profile and the costs and time involved the number of leaders falls. It was announced at the AGM that the compulsory retirement age for leaders has gone up.
This makes it difficult for the club to continue, so it is wound up and the holiday side is sold off. Freshtracks currently relies on club leaders and a grading system for its holidays.
Under new owners, it is decided that the grading will be a rudimentary self assessment and leaders will be replaced by paid ski tutors and guides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Not necessarily. JK Rowling was rejected by 12 publishers before she got any interest. |
Stick it up another 10 times, see if we care then...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
| This is the best idea in the whole thread so far. The SCGB could genuinely help members of the British skiing community by reaching out to the TOs, offering to provide a guiding service for them in resort,... |
Yes it is the obvious thing to do. Which is probably why it has long been standard practice for the leaders to go to TO welcome meetings and offer their services (subject only to specific resort politics). And the policy of two years membership for the price of one for anyone who joins in resort is also long standing, though I don't know for sure if that deal is still going. My point is the SCGB hasn't actually "missed a trick" here. They have been on to this since at least the first hosting ban in France 15 years ago, when I was a rep and had a very busy season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ Years ago when I was in Wengen, the Crystal rep was joined for the day by the SCGB rep and someone from the Downhill Only club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
