 Poster: A snowHead
|
The Abominable snowHead, I have looked at the SCGB site and cannot find any reference to the SCGB as being as you say " the spokesbody for British skiers ". The nearest to it I can get is a corporate governance statement here corporate governance statement and there is no mention of what you say there. Where is your information from?. it seems to me that you are looking at perhaps old document that is not currently relevant. And who says that mission statements cannot be binned if that are deemed to be inappropraiate. And why has the SCGB to be voice of British skiers?. There are no sacrosanct issues here. It may do interviews from time to time on current issues concerning skiing or to comment on avalanches, etc... But what is its knowledge of ski racing, for example?.
It is just another club. Nothing less, nothing more.
It is there to fulfil the requirements of its members. Pure and simple. And it should'nt aim to be the biggest UK ski organisation. Concentrate on its core activities and cut-out all these periphersal activities like managing the environment which it is now seeming being caught up in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| Gimme a break, Tim. Our Club stated in 1995 that the mission (which isn't something one bins)... |
Not so. Any reasonably run organization reviews its mission - or it dies. The Club has clearly reviewed it core activities since 1995. It no longer pretends to be the spokesbody for British skiers (actually, I am amazed that it did then). To suggest that it still does so boarders on mischievous misrepresentation, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Personally, I do not really care about the SCGB one way or the other, but on the very rare occasions on the news where there is a skiing item (but not olympics) I have noticed that the BBC or whoever it is, will choose to ask a representative of SCGB to be the talking head for the interview. So in that sense, maybe it could be argued that they are acting as a spokesbody  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Blimey, I seem to have inadvertently walked into a hornets nest  - I don't know what the history to this argument is or who the personalities are so I'm not taking any side or attacking any individual and please do me the favour of not recycling my words to attack others here.
Firstly, when I used the words 'sub-standard' I did so purely in a subjective way and not as an objective comment on the journalism or anything else - my personal view at the time nothing less nothing more.
To clarify I read the magazine/was a member from late 1980 to I'd guess sometime in 1982 when I let my membership lapse because all I was getting out of it was the magazine and I thought it was cr*p, personal opinion nothing more. At that time I think it was edited by Elizabeth Hussey (I have the September 1980 issue by me so that one certainly was).
To be honest now when I compare it to it's contemporary, Ski magazine, there's not that much to separate them although I'd say Ski Survey was a far blander product and seemed to have far less to say to me as a Scottish based skier than Ski magazine which did which at least had an irregular 'Scottish notes' style column. I got the impression rightly or wrongly at the time that the club was a very London/South East biased organisation which is fine although the name Ski Club of *Great Britain* was somewhat misleading because it certainly seemed to have nothing to say about or for the not insignificant area of Great Britain I was in.
Being brutally honest the impression I picked up was that it was a posh club for posh people based in the South East of England and I eventually accepted that for a teenager living near Aviemore who was crazy about skiing (but wasn't into posh balls and jolly hocky sticks etc.), skied every possible weekend during the season, but was only involved in the Scottish ski scene, the SCGB was not for me and more so was, in truth, an absolute and utter irrelevance to me and I'd suggest indigenous snowsports (at least in Scotland) as well. Whether that situation has changed I can't comment but I'd be interested to hear what people's thoughts are on where the SCGB is at now (without personal attacks though please  )
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sun 23-04-06 1:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
| Personally, I do not really care about the SCGB one way or the other, but on the very rare occasions on the news where there is a skiing item (but not olympics) I have noticed that the BBC or whoever it is, will choose to ask a representative of SCGB to be the talking head for the interview. So in that sense, maybe it could be argued that they are acting as a spokesbody . |
I see what you are getting at Ray. I suppose media exposure is in the club's interest - and maybe the personalities involved like being on TV. And from the media's viewpoint, the club is probably the largest identifiable group of British skiers. Personally, I think it's stretching it a bit to say that the club is therefore "the" (rather than "a") spokespody for British skiers. If it is, it is by default rather than mission, I think. It's not part of any written aim that I am aware of. It'd be a very pretentious aim, IMO.
[edit] Further thought. Maybe the reason the media turns to the club is that it has a track record of handling interviews well. But the media could equally turn to a TO such as Thomson/Crystal - who sees more skiers each year, I guess, than the Club does. It wouldn't change the aims of the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Nick Zotov, I suspect one of the reasons that they get asked for comments on TV is that "Ski Club of Great Britain" is a good brand name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Nick Zotov, I suspect one of the reasons that they get asked for comments on TV is that "Ski Club of Great Britain" is a good brand name. |
Yes. Odd that the hierarchy want the club to be known just as the "Ski Club".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to deal with the points I have seen raised here recently
Should? - No.
Could? - No.
Does it pretend to be the sole spokesbody for UK skiers? - No.
What is it's purpose? - According to the site today "To help people get onto the slopes to enjoy skiing and boarding without spending a fortune" - Sounds unobjectionable to me.
Is the magazine better now? - Certainly hugely better now than when I was previously a member 1986-1990. Pre-internet it may have been easier to sell a ski magazine...
Is is a failure? - 30,000 members and going up. Financially Solvent. How is that a failure?
Is it elitist? - well skiing ain't cheap - but there is no evidence I have seen to convince me it is more elitist now than SnowHeads.
Is its forum as good as SnowHeads? - no, of course not, but so what?
Is Snowheads more representative of British Skiing? - well how many people here have posted here more than 100 times? I suspect less than 500? And does Snowheads want to be representative? surely it is for fun and information..
Does the club have to be "relevant"? - trying to be "relevant" sounds like a Conservative politician trying to be cool... why bother. Doomed to failure...
so - in answer to Mr Gs points... why not leave things as they are, and shut down this bit of SnowHeads - leaving Club members to squabble/argue on their own forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
snowHeads couldn't nor should it take over Ski Club (actually saying the words makes it sound pretty daft!). snowHeads is a group of ~200 active contributors and a few thousand members with pretty close to nothing in the way of physical assets. The forum is the heart of snowHeads, I started ski-ing a few years ago and snowHeads and the old SCGB forum have changed the way I go about my ski-ing (for the better). The SCGB could have maintained an open forum if it wished and personally I think this would have strengthened the organisation, however they chose not to.
I'm quite keen on the idea of archiving the SCGB part of the forum and replacing it with a Snowsports area (probably by renaming the Olympics section)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Hopkinson,
| Quote: |
I'm quite keen on the idea of archiving the SCGB part of the forum and replacing it
|
I completely agree with all in your post above. I now believe, particularly after this last week, that the SCGB section here is simply being used to repeat arguments on the clubs own forum and some peoples own agenda and now serves no purpose here.
The perceived amusement value in seeing the SCGB being derided here is now so diminished as to be wearing for the rest of us.
Perhaps you could take these views to the sites owner.
Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ian Hopkinson, and boredsurfin, I'm with you. I also like the idea of a snowsports area. Of course, there already is Mysnowsports - but an area for ski-sports bystanders (like me) seems a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
If the SCGB was done away with I am sure that Mr Goldsmith and his out riders would try and introduce the subject under other threads. Best to leave the SCGB section in place as least people will no where not to go to avoid their petty little squabbles!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| riverman wrote: |
| If the SCGB was done away with I am sure that Mr Goldsmith and his out riders would try and introduce the subject under other threads. Best to leave the SCGB section in place as least people will no where not to go to avoid their petty little squabbles! |
How about making "SCGB" an extermination word for any message with it in? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Err ... I honestly don't think the Ski Club of Great Britain - SCGB - is the albatross or elephant in our kitchen. We need to look closer to home for the clues to any disharmony, and it would be a bit odd for any particular phrase to be banned from snowHeads!
One 'maxim' that springs to mind is 'familiarity breeds contempt': does it ring bells? Is it automatic? Should we all be 'Bland of Surbiton'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The The Abominable snowHead, still has not answered my question which I now repeat ( see previous post ) where is your information from that the SCGB is the spokespersn for British skiers?. I do not see any current mission statement. Point me there please. Perhaps his alter ego might veture a response?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Ian Hopkinson, yes, please archive the SCGB section! By having a separate section we are implying that topics on the SCGB are welcome - I think we've got past that stage now! Threads about the SCGB should be discussed on the SCGB forum and have no place here (unless there is anything of general interest in which case it can go in the appropriate section) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
hibernia et al,
The 1995 commitment of the Club to enhance its role as "spokesbody of British skiers" only makes sense (it's a mission statement, after all) when seen from the perspective of representations and actions since that time. I'd make the following points:
1. The Club's media focus is very much on being 'the key port of call' for journalists, when a national skiers' viewpoint is needed. Nothing controversial about that, and it's consistent with the 1995 statement.
2. The Club's revenue and sponsorship strategy is very much geared to its status (accepted or not) as the national skiers' voice/body. That revenue is not sourced from members, which can be significant.
3. Since 1995 the Club has joined the Snowsports Industries of Great Britain, which is a national membership body of ski businesses.
4. The Club publishes a national snowsports survey every year, and represents itself as the authority on national skier trends and demands (whether members or not)
5. The Club was very much the driving force behind National Ski and Snowboard Day, in March 2006, which was a motivational strategy for new skiers (primarily beginners and therefore non-members).
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sun 23-04-06 21:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Been staying out of this but was about to post in a similar vein to DGs. The club, while withdrawing from public declaration, positions itself and is no shrinking violet when it's assumed to be representing us great unwashed snowsports enthusiasts and as long as it continues to do so we have every right and responsibility to praise or spit on its non-member based activities and statements.
I agree that internal club political squabbling should be kept within its own walls, however when club PR, policy and product spills over the walls we dam well have the right to comment.
If that makes the club's supporters feel uncomfortable you'd be better tasked with sorting out the club's mixed messages, until then I suggest you stop whinging about anyone else having an opinion about a club that feels free to subjugate and usurp ours
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith, sorry you still have not answered my question. It may have been the mission statement several moons ago but I do not see it purporting itself to be that now. It may offer opinions on snowsports from time to time to the broadcast and print media but it is NOT a public body, has no public functions or responsibilities and IS answerable ONLY to its current membership in the same way as any other ski club in the UK is. As long as it is run reasonably efficiently and balances its budgets and does not take unnecsssary risks with the assets atributed to it then I think it fulfills its responsibilities.
Ideas like trying to put forward fancy papers on how to control the environment are pure tokenism. Simple and commonsene measures are all that are required and no need for special advisory EWG committees ( personal view ) And as for grandiose plans of recruitment millons of members, it is not a practical proposition in this day and age as people on the whole do not necessarily join clubs to engage in sporting activities as there are so much other things that simultaneously pull their attention.
As to elitism, lets kick that one into touch. The majority of members, are like snowheads, ordinary people who enjoy snowsports.
If you are not happy with the SCGB in its current form why do you still continue to be a member?. Is it for the sole purpose of winding people up on these fora to get a reaction?. You must seriously ask yourself - do you have the best interests of the club at heart?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hibernia, as I'm saying ... look beyond mission statements to what our Club is actually saying and doing in relation to the media, the ski business ... and satisfy yourself that the 1995 mission statement is not being acted out (if your concern is that the Club should not be the spokesbody of British skiers.
On your points: You believe that the club "IS answerable ONLY to its current membership". I would encourage you to subject that statement to rigorous testing as per the Club's contractual relationships with its sponsors, advertisers and business partners. Are you saying that the Club is not answerable to those who financially support it? Independence and impartiality have to be regarded as tablets of stone ... the Club's founders' idealism and phenomenal work should be honoured. Their attitudes to commercial relationships vis-a-vis duties to the membership were very clear.
Regarding your last para, I continue to belong to the Club because it's good to support a 103-year-old institution with a rich history and an interesting future. It's like an internal organ in a weird sort of way, and I'm trying to keep all bodily functions intact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| Yes I think this section of SH should be closed down and wiped not even archived. |
I disagree. Whether it aims to be or not, and whether we like it or not, SCGB is an institution that is part of British skiing, like the Daily Mail Ski Show, Ski Sunday, Snowsport GB, SIGB or BARSC (British Alpine Racing Ski Clubs). If people want to discuss SCGB on this site, they should have a right to do so - hopefully in a polite and civilised manner.
If others are bored by SCGB - well, no-one is forcing them to click on this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Fine sentiments indeed. I suggest a quick read of the Ski Club's private (members only) chat room may just explain the growing numbers here who would like to see the SCGB part of this site removed for good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| halfhand wrote: |
| Yes I think this section of SH should be closed down and wiped not even archived. |
I disagree. Whether it aims to be or not, and whether we like it or not, SCGB is an institution that is part of British skiing, like the Daily Mail Ski Show, Ski Sunday, Snowsport GB, SIGB or BARSC (British Alpine Racing Ski Clubs). If people want to discuss SCGB on this site, they should have a right to do so - hopefully in a polite and civilised manner.
If others are bored by SCGB - well, no-one is forcing them to click on this topic. |
Hmm. The Daily Mail Ski Show was disappointing a few years ago when I went - and from what I read in snowheads was worse this season. So perhaps it should quietly disappear, rather than be clung on to. This forum section has similar lack of merit. Any genuine chat (as opposed to regurgitation of in-house worries) which included the SCGB would naturally fall into other sections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Right, I think I'm gonna stop reading this one although it's tempting to continue in a voyeuristic 'oh look a there's a car crash' sort of way. The thread reads like an old boys club argument (with a very few honourable exceptions) with some Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass thrown in, no prizes for guessing who Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are! An argument where the key protagonists have known each other for years and have years of enmity, petty rivalry and bitterness to work through in every argument no matter what the original rights and wrongs may be. If this is how things were conducted on the old SCGB forums I'm not surprised they shut them down or made them private or whatever they did.
As a newcomer who innocently posted and found my words immediately being used by various of the 'old boys' to metaphorically bash each other over the head, I find myself feeling utterly fed up with the puerile and petty nature of this thread, it would be funny (in a Monty Python/Ripping Yarns sort of way) if it weren't slightly sad.
It's quite obvious that I'm not going to get a sensible answer to any of my questions so I'll give up now and escape with my sanity before reading more of this tosh sends me round the bend.
However what I should say strongly, and perhaps some of you might take some notice (but probably not), is that I'd be very cautious about joining any club that had you lot in it, ski club or otherwise, and I'd hazard a guess that I'm not alone in that!
Thankfully the rest of SnowHeads is a hell of a lot more open and interesting to read and post in.
I'll get me coat....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
roga, Any room in that taxi? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| roga wrote: |
Thankfully the rest of SnowHeads is a hell of a lot more open and interesting to read and post in.
I'll get me coat.... |
You probably only need an umbrella to get to the next bar/forum section. Shame that the SCGB members here have treated you so badly - don't worry, the rest of the lunatics in the asylum are mostly less intense ( Masque -- say nothing  ) ... mind you some of them are away playing in the snow (bit strange that on a ski forum !!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
wait - I'll get my coat....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
eEvans, I'll get me medication ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| roga wrote: |
It's quite obvious that I'm not going to get a sensible answer to any of my questions so I'll give up now and escape with my sanity before reading more of this tosh sends me round the bend ...
I'll get me coat.... |
roga, I can't find any questions.
You wrote some long and interesting postings, but there don't seem to be any questions.
Please ask the questions that you believe you asked and I'm sure our team of lunatics (your description!) will be pleased to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
Hmm. The Daily Mail Ski Show was disappointing a few years ago when I went - and from what I read in snowheads was worse this season. So perhaps it should quietly disappear, rather than be clung on to. This forum section has similar lack of merit. Any genuine chat (as opposed to regurgitation of in-house worries) which included the SCGB would naturally fall into other sections. |
Nick, I know it's not really relevant to this thread but there is due to be another "London ski show" this autumn at Excel in Docklands, so that might shake things up a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Martin Bell, I didn't know that - thanks for the info. I see it's on the Natives listing, but with no hyperlink, yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| cathy on 23 April 2006 wrote: |
| ... please archive the SCGB section! |
cathy's wish was the administrators' command!
----------------------
So ... 9 years on ... would it be a good idea for the SCGB's assets to be re-worked to achieve something more useful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Karl Marx wrote: |
| cathy on 23 April 2006 wrote: |
| ... please archive the SCGB section! |
cathy's wish was the administrators' command!
----------------------
So ... 9 years on ... would it be a good idea for the SCGB's assets to be re-worked to achieve something more useful? |
So 7 years on….would it be a good idea for the SCGB members to have a thread of their own to chat about something? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@AL9000, why? who gives a flying ...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @AL9000, who gives a flying ...? |
Good question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
