achilles, That green block on the left of under 24s are included on family memberships (many won't realise or care that they are members). The 24-34 block gives an idea of how few remain when its time to pay for themselves but it's declining. 24-44 all in decline, 45-65+ all on the increase. From where I sit it doesn't look rosy. But the sport generally has the same problem.
Yeah, I did ignore the green stuff on the left of the graph. But there is more of a percentage in the 35-54 age blocks than I had expected. Even if they don't recruit many who are younger than that now, if they can retain and maybe recruit a few in the present 35-54 group, maybe they'll be viable for another 15 years.
I suspect some youngsters may return to skiing in the more mature years, once high-pressure careers and young families have reduced their importance time-wise. From what I see the sort of people who might go skiing have more pressure on their time from work than in my day. Also, they are having children later, so the time demands kids bring will also last to later than was the case in earlier years.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Agenterre That's about it I think, although it's hard to realize the value from this type of thing unless you have a large stupid organization to sell to. The SCGB comes to mind, actually, but unless they're all as daft as the person who started this thread then they'd likely spot the "pile of ashes" it'd turn into if they did that. Snowboarders looking at a forum hosted by the SCGB, not in this universe.
---
Demographics... I think that the interesting thing to look at is not the absolute numbers.
I think they've always been posh old southern skiers, so it's no surprise to me that they still are. The real question is... is the SCGB ageing faster than the population at large? I'd guess they probably aren't. Not that it matters.
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?
I am from the 'took up skiing at 40 group' and got bored on-piste so took up boarding for variety at the same time as joining SCGB for off-piste skiing as a solo skier.
The scgb has taken me to 'experienced off-piste skier', through affordable holidays with instruction/guiding, who will tackle anything and I really appreciate that.
At the same time, while reluctant to criticise, I have to be honest and insist that the 6 references to boarding are no more than an attempt to appear boarder friendly (just like the scgb mag Ski & Board) but reality they are not. I both ski & board with the scgb and what predominates is an intolerance of boarders from a very vocal significant proportion of membership and reps, and it is not just old school middle class southern members (But then again I could say the same of some professional Guides). Until that is resolved they will never really be snow sport family or group friendly (if a boarder is in the family/group) therefore diminishing membership potential.
Having done snowboard trips with others, e.g. McNab Chamonix, I will continue to support SCGB attempts for boarders, e.g. this season scgb have offered two trips specifically to boarders by email, as I preferred the scgb trips on a board when the prejudiced were not there over the McNab trips as two many whingers on McNab trips. It appears I prefer to risk prejudice in preference to the company of whingers?
Perhaps I should take my board to the PSB and test out SH, maybe next season.
Actually I'd never thought of the SCGB as being an off piste organization. I can see some value in that - I will never need that "leader" stuff, but if I wasn't otherwise connected, it's very useful to have someone with the gear and perhaps some idea to ride back country with. That seems to me to me more "sport" oriented than the holiday/ leadering business, which is good in my view.
sahsah wrote:
... I both ski & board with the scgb and what predominates is an intolerance of boarders from a very vocal significant proportion of membership and reps, and it is not just old school...
That reminds me of the old guys in powder suits (not SCGB) who didn't want to ride with me one season. I was their double nightmare: English, and a snowboarder. I made a point of riding them into the ground from the first turn. At the end of the day they bought me beer and said I was an "honorary skier". I felt they were probably beyond redemption, but perhaps they'd learned something.
In my experience you can't make assumptions based on anything other than watching people's first turn.
Oh yeah: every competent boarder I know can also ski very well. It's the one trick people who I guess find it all hard.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
philwig wrote:
Oh yeah: every competent boarder I know can also ski very well. It's the one trick people who I guess find it all hard.
Pretty much it and vice versa. There's probably something missing in most skiers' development if they haven't boarded.
One thing I didn't mention about why I secretly enjoy boarding with the scgb is that I love being at the bottom of moguls waiting for them to catch up after they have said, "we don't want to be held by a boarder"! Just wish it could be few boarders. Only once in 15 years, at least two trips a year, have I been on a scgb hol & boarder being there, ironically i was on skis, so I hired one and loved it as he was better than me off-piste.
I just had a chuckle about the 'powder suits', I had two and boarded in them up to 10 years ago, so was called 'gay on a tray', 'fag in a bag' etc. and had a good banter when boarding with decent scgb members.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
boredsurfin wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, OK, the impossible has happened and you are now Chief Exec and CEO of the SCGB.... in less than 10 bullet points what would you do with your club.
(Dismiss Jerry Atken is a given!)
Well, no, Gerry Aitken isn't an employee of the CEO. What Gerry should do is look at all the electoral promises he's given to his electors to become a member of SCGB Council (twice) and then look at what he's delivered - the list is conveniently given on a previous page. Then he can decide what to do about it.
If I was CEO of the Ski Club the first thing I'd do is produce a proper annual report ... of the type modelled/exemplified by the 2004 annual report. It had pages of well-presented data and diagrams analysing the SCGB's performance. Interestingly, that was a year the Club had top-line professional leadership - Sally Cartwright OBE, publishing director of Hello! magazine, and not a leader/rep of the Ski Club. A heavy dose of objectivity from the top.
The 2013 annual report is of little value, in comparison: simply an exercise in hiding key facts. It's pretty disgraceful that such a poor effort should appear, 9 years after the Club seemed to be waking up to what was needed.
I can't see the point of wheeling in a commercial CEO who is seemingly just propping up a dodgy status quo of expenses-paid skiing on a grand scale. It's time to open the books to see who's winning what, who's voting for their own 'Christmas skiing through the season', and who's cashing in on the splashed Euros/Swiss Francs this winter. The gravy train is about to depart St Pancras again, and it'll land at Geneva Airport shortly, platform 3.
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.
I agree with your desire for more information.
However, I would deduct marks for the fourth paragraph -'dodgy status quo of expenses-paid skiing on a grand scale' etc. It is not MPs expenses under discussion here.
The leaders do actually turn up in their resorts and a full Winter of funding leaders could reasonably amount to the sum mentioned in the annual report. It is just your personal opinion on view here. You happen to be against the repping/leader model. Either show abuse of the system or suspected abuse; or simply say you are against the concept of leaders. I am not even sure what is meant by 'Christmas skiing througout the season'.
My own view is that the attractions of SCGB expenses, in return for performing a leader's role, are not that irresistible for most of its membership.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
George Jones wrote:
I agree with your desire for more information ... It is not MPs expenses under discussion here.
Isn't it precisely the same ... except that (as you infer) the MPs disclosed more information?
George Jones wrote:
Either show abuse of the system or suspected abuse
I'm not saying that SCGB expenses for ski trips and resort assignments are spent on duck houses, moats and porn videos. It's simply impossible to see how these budgets of £200,000 to £300,000 per winter can be justified, given that they benefit the SCGB membership to a fraction of what was delivered 20+ years ago (when the repping system was a third or quarter of the cost).
George Jones wrote:
am not even sure what is meant by 'Christmas skiing througout the season'.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
OK, say 30 leader resorts with reps/leaders for 3 months or 12 weeks. That would be 360 leader weeks.
240k/360 = £666. The mark of the beast. OK you were right all along.
Then again there may be more than one rep/leader in some resorts. So it does not look as though they will be leading a luxurious lifestyle. Lots of things were a fraction of the cost twenty years ago.
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.
Also I read :-
''On the costs.
We explained the increase to him, but it appears he has never heard of inflation. True, some resorts stopped paying for accommodation, but the staff have been very good at making up this shortfall through sponsorship. Anyway, the Leader actually generate a profit for the Club''
So, on that basis, more leaders needed - not less?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Not sure who/where you're quoting from there, George, but vaguely recall that those words come from a SCGB director who is a leader. If SCGB leaders "generate a profit for the Club" then this is not clear on the accounts ...
There's the ongoing mystery of ... "Leaders service" costs of £241k sitting next to "Ski Club Freshtracks costs" of £177k (which are already listed separately at £2.2m) ... and there's an indication that additional £100 travel payments have been made from the SCGB's Environmental Fund.
What revenues do you feel might be attributed to the leaders, then?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
Not sure who/where you're quoting from there, George, but vaguely recall that those words come from a SCGB director who is a leader. If SCGB leaders "generate a profit for the Club" then this is not clear on the accounts ...
There's the ongoing mystery of ... "Leaders service" costs of £241k sitting next to "Ski Club Freshtracks costs" of £177k (which are already listed separately at £2.2m) ... and there's an indication that additional £100 travel payments have been made from the SCGB's Environmental Fund.
What revenues do you feel might be attributed to the leaders, then?
Memberships of members who would not be members were it not for the leaders?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
How many people respond to this thread calling for blood due to alleged creative accounting ? How many SCGB memberships cancelled because of this thread ?
Errr , .... One and possibly none.
Everyone has seen the figures, and still nothing.
The SCGB have silenced the idiot
The SCGB will push on, evolve .. Is that wrong ?
I think the club have handed the shovel over to DG to dig the snow pit and jump in, waited for a fresh snowfall to fi it in and make all the chopped up crud look nice again, and have thrown away the tranceiver and probe.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
Not sure who/where you're quoting from there, George, but vaguely recall that those words come from a SCGB director who is a leader. If SCGB leaders "generate a profit for the Club" then this is not clear on the accounts ...
I am quoting your nemesis on the SCGB forum.
Again, I agree that more detail would be welcome but, on the face of it, your claims about lavish expenditure on the leader programme do not stack up. You should still seek answers but I do not the think the SCGB will provide them unfortunately.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
George Jones wrote:
... your claims about lavish expenditure on the leader programme do not stack up. You should still seek answers but I do not the think the SCGB will provide them unfortunately.
George, I've presented evidence that the leader service - minimum cost £240k per annum, as far as we can deduce - is used by around 3000 different members per winter. £80 per head.
If that isn't lavish expenditure, then I propose you buy me a £80 lunch and we can analyse the reasonableness of the bill to your satisfaction.
I won't be "seeking answers" on that aspect of the SCGB's operations. It is absurd to have the leader service costing more, per participating head, than the basic annual subscription (£62). The situation is plain, simple to see and quite ridiculous. The membership fee for those wishing to ski with a leader should obviously be far higher, or a proper 'common denominator' membership package should be drawn up which doesn't involve this lavish expenditure.
In 1995 3500 SCGB members skied with reps, at a cost of £89k. £25 per head. The annual subscription then was £41 (outside London) or £45 (inside London). Even that cost was a crazy percentage of the subscription.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 2-12-13 8:12; edited 1 time 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?
limegreen1 wrote:
The SCGB have silenced the idiot
Which idiot? The Ski Club of Great Britain doesn't involve idiots.
... claims about lavish expenditure on the leader programme do not stack up.
He's just pointing out that it costs more for each skier to use their "leadership" service than their membership cost, is he not? I don't think that's "idiotic": it's in the report.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
George Jones wrote:
... your claims about lavish expenditure on the leader programme do not stack up. You should still seek answers but I do not the think the SCGB will provide them unfortunately.
George, I've presented evidence that the leader service - minimum cost £240k per annum, as far as we can deduce - is used by around 3000 different members per winter. £80 per head.
If that isn't lavish expenditure, then I propose you buy me a £80 lunch and we can analyse the reasonableness of the bill to your satisfaction.
I won't be "seeking answers" on that aspect of the SCGB's operations. It is absurd to have the leader service costing more, per participating head, than the basic annual subscription (£62). The situation is plain, simple to see and quite ridiculous. The membership fee for those wishing to ski with a leader should obviously be far higher, or a proper 'common denominator' membership package should be drawn up which doesn't involve this lavish expenditure.
In 1995 3500 SCGB members skied with reps, at a cost of £89k. £25 per head. The annual subscription then was £41 (outside London) or £45 (inside London). Even that cost was a crazy percentage of the subscription.
Well the service is there for all who choose to make use of it. So I do not see it as lavish. It is the same as the gym membership analogy that I used before. Some people make full use others do not. You obviously prefer a 'pay per go' model.
1/4 of a million seems like quite a lot of outgoings to fund ski leaders that the French authorities believe are unpaid.
But it's their club, and up to them how they spend income from membership fees etc. And I expect a significant portion of membership fees comes from people that do it just to get a discount code for chalet or holiday and save more than that else where.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
andy wrote:
1/4 of a million seems like quite a lot of outgoings to fund ski leaders that the French authorities believe are unpaid.
You have to get all those volunteers to and from the mountains, give them a lift pass and provide accommodation. It does not seem a lot when you factor all that in.
After all it is free
After all it is free
philwig wrote:
George Jones wrote:
... claims about lavish expenditure on the leader programme do not stack up.
He's just pointing out that it costs more for each skier to use their "leadership" service than their membership cost, is he not? I don't think that's "idiotic": it's in the report.
In the words of Robert de Niro 'You talkin to me?'
If yes, why? I never used the term 'idiotic'. Limegreen1 is your man/woman.
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.
'" the Leaders service is always voted the most popular service the Club provides. Do away with the Leaders and I'll be off along with pretty much everyone else who's in the Club to ski with the Club.
Also, the retention rate for people who ski with the Leaders is the highest amongst all the members. "
Seems like a fair comment.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
More. Look at ways to increase usage of the fixed cost of providing the service.
"The main issue with the leader service is to get more people using it. That might take a bit of creative thinking with pilot schemes in some resorts (I don't have any off-the-shelf plans by the way). As I understand it, the £240K is going to be relatively fixed cost. In another place a worthy sage has decided it "costs" £80 per separate user, which isn't accurate even if the figure of 3000 unique users is true. It costs £240K regardless of the number of users, it just works out (assuming the 3000 figure is reasonable) to be on average post-hoc £80. That said, it would not be a bad idea to have an amount like the membership fee as an "aspirational" target for what the average should work out to be. It feels logical. That takes me back to the creative thinking for boosting the use of what I actually think is an under-sold benefit of club membership."
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
For clarification. Limegreen used term Idiot not idiotic.
Idiot = pjski.
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.
George Jones wrote:
andy wrote:
1/4 of a million seems like quite a lot of outgoings to fund ski leaders that the French authorities believe are unpaid.
You have to get all those volunteers to and from the mountains, give them a lift pass and provide accommodation. It does not seem a lot when you factor all that in.
Could they not just use locals with season passes as volunteers? That would save the hassle of getting there, accommodation, lift passes and working in France without a permit..........
I assumed volunteer meant just that, not free holiday, no wonder they don't want DG stirring this up.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Some leaders are based in the mountains.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Leaders have to show all levels of skiers/boarders the slopes - not just do their own thing.
As I have said before, SCGB members are not usually that financially stretched that they cannot ski without the club funding the cost.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
George Jones, Thanks George, what sort of split do you think are based locally? Do leaders have to declare this work on their P11D? or does the club pay the benefit in kind ( BIK) for them, presumably at 40 % if they are not usually financially stretched, most will be paying 40% on income. Glad that there is no free lunch, and they are treating being a leader as work.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
I suspect and I'd prefer not to be dragged into this, is that the costs have a lot to do with getting reps to and from resort, most reps are volunteers, they have another paying job, this means they take a few weeks off and go skiing, now some places provide free accommodation and lift passes for those reps, others just accommodation and some nothing, so in some resorts (where I guess demand for a rep is high) the ski club will pay for everything, whilst in others they may pay relatively little, but they also have to pay for air fairs and transfers as well. Now obviously in recent years the pound has significantly devalued so everything in resort costs more as do air fares.
I don't believe there is any conspiracy, nor do I think that reps are getting far more than they used to, I do think as a member of the DHO that our accounts are more informative than those of the SCGB in their breakdown and I understand why CG gets frustrated but I don't think the SCGB are trying to defraud their members, they're just not very good at providing information.
There might be some creative number work going on with regarding unique visitors and advertising however but that's another matter entirely
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
D G Orf, but why not use French reps in France etc.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
D G Orf, Well said. DHO annual membership fees are similar to SCGB I believe.
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?
So, we're back to the money again.
Whether or not £240k is the (minimum?) amount spent on operating the leader service is a matter of debate.
There are then the enormous sums of £632k spent on "administration, membership and IT" plus £276k on "marketing and club events". Not sure what all this money is spent on, given that Freshtracks, ski operations, the magazine etc. are individually accounted for.
I've previously pointed out that the SCGB currently lists (well, the last time I was able to check the members' section of the website) 27 staff. They serve an estimated 15,000 to 16,000 subscriptions - the membership in 'paying units' (the number's been omitted from the annual report).
In 1995, the Club employed 16 staff to serve 14,995 subscriptions (again, the membership 'paying units'). [figures obtained from 1996 annual report].
So, the staff numbers appear to have increased by 11, but the total productivity and membership growth generation appears - if anything - to have declined.
Not sure of the current staffing levels at the headOffice of snowHeads, and the general overHeads situation. A comparison - given that membership of this Club is free (based on voluntary donations/subscriptions/trading etc. as an alternative financing model) - might be valid at this juncture.
Comedy Goldsmith, So do you think the £632k admin or £276k marketing are being misappropriated or are somehow unnecessary?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Mistress Panda
Quote:
The SCGB, if it was clever about it, might find a TO prepared to give up a luxurious "customer" room in resort to save the SCGB food/accommodation costs for their rep, in return for the SCGB being given the opportunity to take customers out guiding and maybe sell them the idea of joining up. Saves the ordinary member a bit of money, because leaders are getting free board, and they become a SCGB part of the TO team.
...I personally spent a season getting board and lodging off a TO during the first 'hosting' ban in France. The opportunity to get a rep into an expensive French resort was not lost on the club. Even though the TOs started hosting again after a couple of seasons the club found a way to keep a rep in that resort - and they are still there. That's what the reps manager does. There are many and varied arrangements, but I think you'd have to go a long way to find an organisation with a track record for getting free/subsidised accommodation to match that of the SCGB. If they can't capitalise on the new hosting ban, it will not be because it didn't occur to them.
Caroline Stuart-Taylor, CEO of the SCGB, 1996-2012.
In looking at the SCGB staffing situation (generous, one might say) it's relevant to celebrate/note/wonder at the work of Caroline Stuart-Taylor.
CS-T was appointed managing director of the SCGB in 1996, became chief executive in 2002 and left the Club in 2012. The key change that occurred during that 16 years was the advent of the internet and online publishing.
Clearly the Club has invested massively in IT and electronic publishing activity, including an online video TV channel (which was originally based on an independent subscription-financing model that seems to have vanished).
To what end? The membership numbers haven't changed for at least 20 years.
snowHeads entire membership/registration base has been recruited online. From zero in 2004 to 38,000 "registered snowHeads" in 2013 ... though that number of course includes deadHeads, lapsedHeads, jokeHeads etc. etc.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
George Jones wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, So do you think the £632k admin or £276k marketing are being misappropriated or are somehow unnecessary?
Perhaps your imagination and business experience could play a role here, George. It's for you to ask the questions - you're the non-expelled member.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Comedy Goldsmith, Well look at any typical small golf club. Say five hundred members paying £500 a year in fees. The expenses figures associated running that you may consider quite large.
I will concede that the expenditure is usually itemised in more detail the SCGB extract you highlight.
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:
though that number of course includes deadHeads, lapsedHeads, jokeHeads etc. etc.
Comedy Goldsmith, you forgot CokeHeads & KnobHeads.
What all this naval-gazing and small number crunching ends up illustrating is that the vast majority of people who ski or board just get up one morning and decide to book a ski holiday without reference to anybody. They go on their trip, they enjoy, they go back to work and repeat the following year - half of them don't even know what country they went to and they definitely can't pronounce the name of the resort. If SCGB, the ski shows, the magazines, the websites, the governing bodies, SCUK, SIGB, BASI, etc etc all disappeared overnight, the numbers finding the snow would barely budge. Joe and Josephine Public live on Planet Google - they don't need much else. And Googling almost anything to do with ski leads you back to this site (and sites like it, yes, even SnowRodent) which is why the concept of paying a membership anywhere is, frankly, doomed.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Bode Swiller, Yet predictions of SCGB's imminent demise keep having to be postponed as member numbers remain constant.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
