 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| LaForet wrote: |
Obviously SCGB is a commercial operation as it straight away prompts me for membership. Well, fair enough, I'll take a look |
Actually it's a member owned club, run on a not for profit basis. If you join, you actually own a share of the club.
Not sure what page you looked at, but I've just looked at the 'Membership' where there's a video explaining a bit about the club and a telephone number if you want to talk to anyone about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
....
I don't know how you address group think. No one who has spent their own money will admit conditions were shite although I think we did have some reports where people said they skipped skiing a few days over NY because it was so poor this year. You can usually get enough e.g. when snow making is being praised to know when it is don't bothef. |
I posted something similar about the shite conditions and some photos to prove my point and got right royally slagged off for it, even to the extent that I was apparently threatening peoples jobs in the resorts with such honesty!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Gerry - I understand the membership thing but Companies House registration No.04312167 'The Ski Club of Great Britain Ltd.' - you are a limited company, however you opt to run it. And I assume that you're Gerald Aitken, one of its Directors, along with a Barrister, Secretary and eight other Directors? I'm assuming that you all take out a salary, dividend, business expenses and running costs from out of the fee? And pay VAT and Corporation tax? No problem with that and you are all entitled to make an income out of your efforts, but to me this is 'commercial'. In this context, 'not for profit' just means that you take out as much income from the business as you can.
Frankly, I wouldn't try and hide this - like any business your proposition can reasonably be that eleven people can add a lot of value to the Member's skiing experience. YA free Forum can't match this level of activity; it's a different beast anyway; and there's enough room for both. You can argue that you have the time to properly make contacts in the industry and negotiate meaningful discounts and offers for members. The problem comes if you try to equate your forum to this one: yours is a gateway to chargeable membership, this one isn't. My point is that this being the case, yours has to be effective in a different way and at the moment, lacks the level of activity and added-value to achieve its commercial objective.
Back to the OP - I saw the video but I'm in the short-attention-span category, and videos don't work for me. The bullet points under membership were a nice itemisation but I expected to link from each to the full Ts&Cs. But I know other people are different and the video may work for them. I am definitely not going to call someone - I get too many promotional calls as it is. But of course, everyone is different and this may work for others.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 4-08-17 15:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@LaForet, I belong to a model aircraft association which is a private company limited by guarantee and not having share capital. It is very definitely run by its members via its Council (Board of Directors) - assisted by paid staff, including a CEO. It seems sensible to me that any significantly large association should be a limited company, even though it may run entirely for the benefit of its members. I would expect the directors to be paid reasonable actual expenses. Whether or not they should have compensation or not is a matter for the members - AFIK in the association I belong to there is no salary - only hassle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LaForet wrote: |
@Gerry - I understand the membership thing but Companies House registration No.04312167 'The Ski Club of Great Britain Ltd.' - you are a limited company, however you opt to run it. And I assume that you're Gerald Aitken, one of its Directors, along with a Barrister, Secretary and eight other Directors? I'm assuming that you all take out a salary, dividend, business expenses and running costs from out of the fee? And pay VAT and Corporation tax? No problem with that and you are all entitled to make an income out of your efforts, but to me this is 'commercial'. A significant proportion of the annual membership fee must be going to pay the salaries or dividends for the eleven of you.
Frankly, I wouldn't try and hide this - like any business your proposition can reasonably be that eleven people can add a lot of value to the Member's skiing experience. You could argue that a free Forum can't match this level of activity and that there's enough room for both.
Back to the OP - I saw the video but I'm in the short-attention-span category, and videos don't work for me. The bullet points under membership were a nice itemisation but I expected to link from each to the full Ts&Cs. But I know other people are different and the video may work for them. I am definitely not going to call someone - I get too many promotional calls as it is. But of course, everyone is different and this may work for others. |
I was an elected, by membership vote, non-executive director, I'm not anymore. The position was voluntary and unpaid, the allowable expenses weren't worth claiming, so I didn't bother. The club is limited to protect the members (owners) from liability. The club does not employ a full time barrister. The day to day running of the club is done by the staff who are obviously paid a wage, or else they would die of starvation.  although some of them used to claim they were on starvation wages. I am hiding nothing.
Do you understand what 'not for profit' means? There is no dividend. As a registered sports club, the club is VAT exempt. You only pay tax of profit.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 4-08-17 15:53; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry, what's the point of your posts? We shouldn't be having an argument about organisational logistics. Yes, you only pay tax on profit but that's profit after expenses. You're running an organisation which pays various people a salary. So it's commercial. And those salaries are an overhead on the membership fee. I'm not saying they should work for nothing. You're engaging in another pointless argument with one of the very people you're trying to attract to your website and membership. Given your tone, I wouldn't use it or join it. If this is how you react to moderate levels of criticism, how do you treat members?
Bye bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| LaForet wrote: |
Gerry, what's the point of your posts? We shouldn't be having an argument about organisational logistics. Yes, you only pay tax on profit but that's profit after expenses. You're running an organisation which pays various people a salary. So it's commercial. And those salaries are an overhead on the membership fee. I'm not saying they should work for nothing. You're engaging in another pointless argument with one of the very people you're trying to attract to your website and membership. Given your tone, I wouldn't use it or join it. If this is how you react to moderate levels of criticism, how do you treat members?
Bye bye. |
What about your tone? According to you I'm trying to hide a salary, dividend and bonuses. What kind of a response do you expect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| @LaForet, I belong to a model aircraft association which is a private company limited by guarantee and not having share capital. It is very definitely run by its members via its Council (Board of Directors) - assisted by paid staff, including a CEO. It seems sensible to me that any significantly large association should be a limited company, even though it may run entirely for the benefit of its members. I would expect the directors to be paid reasonable actual expenses. Whether or not they should have compensation or not is a matter for the members - AFIK in the association I belong to there is no salary - only hassle. |
Well, me old mate, that fell on deaf ears, going by his latest post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Just to be clear, as far as I know, @Gerry has nothing to do with the running of SCGB anymore so him reacting to criticism, offering opinion or saying anything to do with SCGB really has no reflection on the club right?
Taking his word as being representative of SCGB is like listening to a guy who happens to be an Arsenal season ticket holder mouthing off about immigrants and then deciding not to support the team anymore because they all must be racists...
Not that I am insinuating anyone is a racist - an extreme example to highlight the ridiculous premise that a non exec. member of any club is representative of the whole club!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Having sworn I wouldnt get sucked into this discussion any further I feel I must add - a commercial organisation is one which is run with the specific aim of turning a profit. I am on the board of two charitable organisations one which employs no one and which currently has a surplus of income over expenditure albeit there is long term outstanding borrowing, the other organisation also runs at a surplus, has large borrowings and employs a range of people with the skills sets necessary to run, manage and ensure the organisation meets its specified objectives. The Ski Club is a not for profit organisation which defrays its costs and expenses (premises, staffing, insurance etc. etc.) against its membership and holiday profit income all of which enable it to work towards the achievement of its Articles and Memorandum of Association. So that together with the similar post from Achilles should put that the commerciality issue to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would just like to point out that Gerry Aitken is not representative of the normal membership of the SCGB who are pretty decent chaps on the whole.
Go easy on him though. All things considered, it's not surprising the poor bug has a bit of a chip on his shoulder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Super Chap Great Bloke wrote: |
I would just like to point out that Gerry Aitken is not representative of the normal membership of the SCGB who are pretty decent chaps on the whole.
Go easy on him though. All things considered, it's not surprising the poor bug has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. |
And what considerations are those?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Gerry Aitken, uniformed representative and spokesman-at-large for the Ski Club of Great Britain wrote: |
The ski club has about 18-19k paid up membership 'units'. |
Please cite the source of that statistic.
The auditors of the SCGB's magazine circulation - ABC - say that its magazines were sent to 15,663 addresses lsat year (latest data: Jan-Dec 2016). So you are saying that the Club increased its membership by between 2300 and 3300 paying units in the past winter. Please give us the proof of this.
Sources: https://www.abc.org.uk/product/643-ski-and-board https://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/48099321.pdf
In actuality, in 2012, the SCGB suddenly and strangely ceased publishing its membership figure in 'paying units' (i.e. number of subscriptions sold). Up until that year it was standard practice to quote that figure in the Club's annual reports, because it's the best indicator of the SCGB's membership strength. In the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 annual reports the figure has not appeared.
Sources: https://www.abc.org.uk/product/643-ski-and-board
https://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/48099321.pdf
| Gerry wrote: |
| I am hiding nothing. |
But you, and your fellow directors, were hiding the paying units data. And you were on a hiding to nothing ... as must be obvious by now.
| Gerry Aitken wrote: |
| Because some of these 'units' are families, the number of members goes up to 27-28k. |
Oh yeah?
Questions:
1. How many membership cards did the Ski Club of Great Britain issue in membership year 2016-7? Please ask the membership dept.
2. How many SCGB members have an eligible vote? (i.e. is it one-member-one-vote?)
I calculated (in 2015) that the SCGB's 'gross' membership figure for 2011 had been exaggerated by at least 6,000, if not 8,000. For 2011 (the last year in which the 'paying units' figure was published) the published 'gross' membership figure seemed to be around 8000 higher than was possible, via a straightforward analysis:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=3840#2674979
The SCGB has been monkeying around with its membership figures for a long time. Its directors (Gerry Aitken included) are well aware of this. For instance, back in 2005 the Club declared that it was henceforth including 'children' up to the age of 24 in family memberships (the previous age limit was 1 . This measure seemed to be aimed at boosting (bumping up) the membership figure in a purely illusionary fashion! (it's not unknown for 18+-year-olds to effectively leave the family unit and go into higher education etc. Is there any other membership organisation in the UK which has taken a similar move of including 18-24s in family units?)
Last year (Mar 2016) the SCGB suddenly declared that it had "secured 15,000 new student members" ...
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2021339&c=setreg®ion=2
... but these 15,000 new members apparently never made it into the 2016 membership figure (they seem to have been omitted from the 2016 annual report, comparing it with 2015).
Did these students pay a subscription? Did they have a vote? Did they suddenly ski into a crevasse, never to be seen again? What exactly was the membership status of these students?
An official comment from SCGB spokesman 'Gotoma86' ...
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856
... or some other HQ spokesman for the Club, would be welcome. It's time to get this membership data absolutely straight - this is Britain's national ski club (est. 1903) we're talking about!
| Gerry wrote: |
| I am hiding nothing. |
You should be running naked down your local high street, and hiding nothing, for making a comment like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| Gerry Aitken, uniformed representative and spokesman-at-large for the Ski Club of Great Britain wrote: |
The ski club has about 18-19k paid up membership 'units'. |
Please cite the source of that statistic.
The auditors of the SCGB's magazine circulation - ABC - say that its magazines were sent to 15,663 addresses lsat year (latest data: Jan-Dec 2016). So you are saying that the Club increased its membership by between 2300 and 3300 paying units in the past winter. Please give us the proof of this.
Sources: https://www.abc.org.uk/product/643-ski-and-board https://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/48099321.pdf
|
My memory. The last time I saw the figures the number was between 18 and 19k. Every membership unit gets the magazine sent, so the ABC audit is going to be correct at the time of publication. As the ABC figures are freely available, how is the Club hiding anything?
Do you want to meet up and discuss the rest of your rubbish? I'm free all weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
How sweet, a date! Remember no tongues on public transport it's not very classy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| How sweet, a date! Remember no tongues on public transport it's not very classy. |
As much as you're spanking your monkey over this, I'm not gay, and I'm pretty sure Goldfish isn't. Obviously there a question mark over you at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shame there's something rather sexy about the straight acting, rough edged, alpha dog bad boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Shame there's something rather sexy about the straight acting, rough edged, alpha dog bad boy. |
That's what your mum said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
No, he rejected your dad's. |
That's not true - my Dad was upset that he never called him 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Do you want to meet up and discuss Ugandan affairs? I'm free all weekend. |
You may be free all weekend, but I am working all Saturday and Sunday and have no desire whatsoever to meet you, in any case.
NB. 'Private Eye in-jokes' ... "Ugandan discussions" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye
| Quote: |
| "Ugandan discussions", or a variation thereof (such as "discussing Ugandan affairs"), is often used as a euphemism for sex, usually while carrying out a supposedly official duty. The term originally referred to an incident at a party hosted by journalist Neal Ascherson and his first wife, at which fellow journalist Mary Kenny allegedly had a "meaningful confrontation" with a former cabinet minister in the government of Milton Obote, later claiming that they were "upstairs discussing Uganda". |
-----------------------------------
The extent to which the Ski Club of Great Britain generates absurd ballooned statistics is best illustrated with its 'media pack'. The 2016-7 Media Pack includes ...
| Quote: |
28,000+ members
1.5m+ unique visitors per year
14.5m+ page views per year
112,000+ subscribers |
The SCGB Media Pack can be accessed from the 'Advertise' section of its website:
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/about-the-ski-club/advertise
Document: https://issuu.com/skiclub/docs/ski_club_media_pack_2016-17/1?ff=true&e=12827994/45824996
| Last Thursday, Gerry wrote: |
| The ski club has 250k registered users of the website. |
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=4640#3087006
Where does that "250k" number come from?
What's a "registered user"?
The Club says it has "112,000+ subscribers" (whatever that means), so how does this tie in the "250k registered users" that you're claiming?
Have you thought of embarking on a career as a double-glazing salesmen? Current opportunities include:
Everest: "Hit your peak performance"
http://careers.everest.co.uk/
Anglian: "People Development"
https://careers.anglianhome.co.uk/
https://careers.anglianhome.co.uk/people-development
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Page 5 of the media pack says that 54% of the paying units are family memberships. Even if every family unit only consisted of 2 people, that number combined with the 46% of individual members give a total of, well what? You work it out. But you can't, can you, because you are number blind. Many family memberships will consist of more that two people so if we take the ABC data, some very simple maths gets us to a figure of c.28k.
Total membership units = 15663 (ABC audited)
Family memberships = (54% of 15663) 8458 (x2 = 16961 at least)
Individual membership units = (46% of 15663) 7205
Total number of members = 24121 (at least) but because a lot of family units are made up of more the two people, the published total of 28000 seems to be accurate to me and, I suspect, most normal people. You don't listen to reason, fact or basic maths though, because anything that runs contrary to your agenda just gets disregarded.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Mon 7-08-17 15:31; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
2 new member services jobs at the Skeeb, advertised last Friday ...
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/news/ski-club-news/2017/08/ski-club-is-hiring-two-member-services-assistants
... including ...
| Quote: |
Explain the benefits of Ski Club Platinum membership, including advising on the insurance cover, medical screening and upgrade options, ensuring we meet compliance and operate within our approved recommender status.
Proactively follow up on payment from members whose membership is due for renewal. |
My membership is certainly due for renewal, and I look forward to a 'proactive follow up' to my rejoining the Club in Nov 2015. The money is here and waiting (as it has been for 20 months) to wing itself into the SCGB bank account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
2 new member services jobs at the Skeeb, advertised last Friday ...
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/news/ski-club-news/2017/08/ski-club-is-hiring-two-member-services-assistants
... including ...
| Quote: |
Explain the benefits of Ski Club Platinum membership, including advising on the insurance cover, medical screening and upgrade options, ensuring we meet compliance and operate within our approved recommender status.
Proactively follow up on payment from members whose membership is due for renewal. |
My membership is certainly due for renewal, and I look forward to a 'proactive follow up' to my rejoining the Club in Nov 2015. The money is here and waiting (as it has been for 20 months) to wing itself into the SCGB bank account. |
AFAIK, the Club refuses to enter into two-way communication with you and that is unlikely to change for all eternity. You are also excluded from the Club forever.
Eternity/forever is a long time. Now, to illustrate this, magine a tungsten carbide sphere the size of our sun (couldn't exist due to the laws of physics, but just imagine) being brushed by a single butterfly wing once every 10,000yrs. Well, when said sphere has been worn away to nothing this two-way communication ban, and your exclusion, will have only just begun.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Tue 8-08-17 20:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
Page 5 of the media pack says that 64% of the paying units are family memberships. Even if every family unit only consisted of 2 people, that number combined with the 46% of individual members give a total of, well what? You work it out. But you can't, can you, because you are number blind. |
The irony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
And that's numberwang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Oh Goody Gumdrops. Numberwang. I knew if I lurked long enough something interesting would happen.
Here goes.
2,367.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 7-08-17 23:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
oops duplicate
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 7-08-17 23:03; 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?
|
|
oops triplicate
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
1.8976543
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
6792
Is this the numerical equivalent of Mornington Crescent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Eternity/forever is a long time. Now, to illustrate this, magine a tungsten carbide sphere the size of our sun being brushed by a single butterfly wing once every 10,000yrs. Well, when said sphere has been worn away to nothing this two-way communication ban, and your exclusion, will have only just begun. |
An interesting concept... Now, we know that Tungsten Carbide has a specific density of 15.6 g/cm3, and the Sun has a (varying but roughly rounded) volume of 1.4 x 10^27m3. Where does this lead us? Well, the Gerrysphere will weigh 2.184x10^31kg. And thats where things get interesting. Gerrysphere will basically start to compact itself under its own weight, getting hotter and hotter at the core, soaring past the 2780'C melting point onwards until the bonds between the atoms themselves start to breakdown and fusion ignites the Gerrysphere into a Gerrystar, glowing an angry yellowish white in the skies above the Earth, bathing us in exotic radiation as the outershells are blown away and extinguishing all life on the planet. But because of the volume of carbon in the Tungsten Carbide (never build your artificial suns using a carbon alloy) the reaction won't be stable for long and the mass of the thing will cause the explosion/implosion to catastrophically tear the thing apart... or collapse uncontrollably inwards towards the singularity of infinite and inescapable denseness of a blackhole... or Gerryhole if you will, which will just sit there sucking in all available matter until the very heat death of the universe.**
And if you can think of a more beautiful metaphor for this thread, I'd like to hear it.
**Full disclosure, I've not properly WolframAlpha'd the nuclear bonding/ignition bit of this, so it may just sit there glowing an orangy/red colour - there is a bit of poetic license in there for a good ending.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 8-08-17 10:43; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's NUMBERWANG
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Richard_Sideways, Ooo. Thanks for making this thread interesting. It's got me googling around. I confess my mind is boggling at the moment - but you've certainly lifted this thread by imploding Gerry's sphere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my wang number is a mere 5 and a bit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
