 Poster: A snowHead
|
Further information for would-be carpet-baggers:
The 'freehold land and buildings' of SCGB HQ is stated as £2.2 million in the 2007 accounts, which is the same figure given in the 2002 accounts. That appears to be the last re-valuation. The figure given in the 2001 accounts was £1.5 million.
I strongly disagree that off-piste repping is the principal role of the SCGB.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 26-11-07 10:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Hey, come Thursday night, will there be whitewash at the Whitehouse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
but that doesn't mean Admin is wrong... after all the actual prosecution would be very hard to bring and most of the time the courts are fairly lenient where there are prosecutions.
However the French police try to establish if someone was "in charge" in investigations, you might end up spending an uncomfortable night in the cells. This would only really be an issue if there was a death or very serious injury. My main point is not to be totally clueless (I was not serious) but to involve all members of the group in the decision making process viz which slopes to ski and which route to take.
Regarding reps in Val d'Isere and the comments above - remember it was the head of piste safety at Tignes who used to expression that "a little bit off piste is like being a little bit pregnant". Yes there is plenty of skiing that is relatively safe but I've also met unguided ski club groups on high risk days on stuff that isn't. I'm not saying they were wrong to be there if the rep judged the conditions safe enough to ski through his training and knowledge.
A lot of snowheads including me think the ski club reps should go off piste (given due consideration to safety). Others are not so happy but we are a long way from a homogeneous bunch and even those who don't like the idea of reps guiding off piste are not necessarily against the ski club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| SCGB HQ is stated as £2.2 million in the 2007 accounts, which is the same figure given in the 2002 accounts. |
Property will have more than doubled in Wimbledon since 2002 so what's going on? - as the club's main asset, it would be important to get this right for the accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| "what's going on?" |
Swiller, are you aware that in every episode of EastEnders that phrase is uttered (for dramatic effect) by up to three members of the cast?
It's a standing joke with the scriptwriters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| davidof wrote: |
but that doesn't mean Admin is wrong...
|
Aw, and there I was just gearing up for a fight with you because someone said we disagreed 
| Quote: |
involve all members of the group in the decision making process viz which slopes to ski and which route to take.
|
Funnily enough, beyond peer group skiing, this advice also rings true with some of the better guides out there.
I recall Nick Parks saying during his off-piste safety talk at the EoSB that he always tries to include the group he's leading in discussion about the surrounding conditions and the ensuing safety issues because no-one is infallible and that way, he has the benefit of all the eyes and minds in the group when making safety decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, I don't think admin is 'wrong' either. I was just trying to bring out two different aspects .
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Property will have more than doubled in Wimbledon since 2002 so what's going on? - as the club's main asset, it would be important to get this right for the accounts. |
Surprises me, too.
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I strongly disagree that off-piste repping is the principal role of the SCGB. |
The only thing I can see the Club does which makes it unique is the off-piste repping. If that goes, then winding the thing up in good order, whilst the accounts are still reasonably sound (assuming that the Verbier fall-out isn't too devastating financially) seems sensible to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
However the French police try to establish if someone was "in charge" in investigations, you might end up spending an uncomfortable night in the cells. This would only really be an issue if there was a death or very serious injury.
|
| achilles wrote: |
davidof, I don't think admin is 'wrong' wither. I was just trying to bring out two differnt aspects .
|
But I just thought of a solution!
Obviously when you go off piste you always make sure you're equipped with the right stationery for the terrain. So, if someone in your group snuffs it, whack a postit note on their back quick that says, 'Follow me' and everyone's off the hook, easy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Surprises me, too.
|
achilles, makes me nervous when you keep agreeing with me.
| Quote: |
The only thing I can see the Club does which makes it unique is the off-piste repping.
|
I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| x7 wrote: |
But I just thought of a solution!
Obviously when you go off piste you always make sure you're equipped with the right stationery for the terrain. So, if someone in your group snuffs it, whack a postit note on their back quick that says, 'Follow me' and everyone's off the hook, easy! |
Might be difficult if they are at the bottom of a crevasse.
The good reps are no doubt very accomplished skiers, tons of experience, top mountaincraft etc. It's the other end of the spectrum that worries me... an OK skier having just shelled out for a couple of weeks training arrives in resort for his/her stint, wants to do the off-piste, overwhelmed by their new status, all-the-gear-no-idea etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Swiller, are you aware that in every episode of EastEnders that phrase is uttered (for dramatic effect) by up to three members of the cast? |
Fanks geeza
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Not ski-club specific but I think everyone needs to take an interest about conditions and the route and the consensus needs to be thought through and everyone happy with it, or happy to go along with it. even if you don't quite get what the situiation is, you can learn something from the process.
And guides do need more eyes and ears, but of course, expect him to have the final call which should be on the prudent side. Nobody is looking for an accident but if you put all your hopes in one man's shoes, you might just have increased your chances of having one.
As for the club reps... you could question their decisions and their experience and then you can decide, but you really can't come out with the excuse of " because they told me to"...IMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, I liked the way that Phillipe discussed the routes we were taking at the EOSB. And when I turned down a line which would have taken us through a short but steep and narrow line between rocks (a mini-couloir I suppose) he didn't make me feel stupid. In the reps case, I largely go along with the no excuse of " because they told me to". I suppose in theory you could be taken somewhere remote and from which there is no escape from the forbidding line- but in practice that has never happened to me when skiing with a rep. The problem is, though, that what you and I think is irrelevant. It's what the local police, prosecution, and courts think that matters - not to mention the insurance companies.
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 Mon 26-11-07 14:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| SCGB HQ is stated as £2.2 million in the 2007 accounts, which is the same figure given in the 2002 accounts. |
Property will have more than doubled in Wimbledon since 2002 ... |
I would think that you're right.
Looking at the Ski Club's 1997 annual report (1997 was the first year that an AGM was held in Wimbledon, after the move from 118 Eaton Square), the first valuation of the freehold of 57-63 Church Road was £1.4 million. The Club was a leaseholder to the Grosvenor Estates at Eaton Square, and disposed of a lease due to expire in 2024.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I am getting serously worried about this thread - everybody seems to be sliding towards agreement with one another. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Hurtle, you're right. Can somebody say something really disagreeable please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Here are some additional rep statistics extracted from the 2007 annual report:
| Quote: |
"Our reps were busy in 42 resorts, in Europe and North America, with over 3,500 days' skiing and boarding enjoyed over all the resorts." [p.4, Chief Executive's report]
"6355 individuals skied with reps" [total - members and non-members - in European countries+USA, from table p.8] |
Thus, on an average day, each Ski Club rep skied with <2 members and non-members.
The number of members who skied with reps in 2006-7 is not stated. [Ten years ago, the figure stated was 3813 members, and I think this would be roughly accurate for 2006-7, since these numbers have generally remained fairly static over the past decade].
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
David Goldsmith, excellent, someone is bound to disagree with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
aaahhh... that's better!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bode Swiller, Hurtle, happy to help 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll re-phrase what I said above ...
| Quote: |
| on an average day, each Ski Club rep skied with <2 members and non-members. |
... to the more accurate ...
| Quote: |
| on an average day, each Ski Club rep skied with <2 members and non-members who had not, thus far, skied with a rep in that winter. |
Is that about right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some clarity would be useful. If there was a total 'skier days' figure available it would help. Maybe that could be broken down over resort and perhaps rep.
The trouble is people get defensive and suspicious of agendas. I think reps are a great idea but, at the same time, I would welcome some sort of cost/benefit analysis.
I have certainly come across situations where the rep had too many looking to ski with them on certain days. Last year in Verbier for example.
I also seem to have a different experience of reps to that suggested above, where prior to the latest edict,reps spent all the time skiing off piste. The rep schedule suggests otherwise. Even on days when there was off-piste it was not all day off-piste. It seems a bit rich to imagine that you can get a proper off-piste guiding service on the cheap. £50 for the whole season ? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
So, if I suddenly, and unexpectedly, became the new Chief Exec I'd... tear up the constitution, scrap the reps, bin the mag, close SkiTV, slash the workforce, outsource anything that's outsourceable, flog the property and move to a nice-but-economical office out of the M25 (Lincoln probably as there's amazing expertise up that way) and start making money. Forget all that not-for-profit stuff. Then me and a small but loyal bunch of lieutenants could naff awf heli-skiing all winter. That'll stop all the arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, It would be very difficult for you to take over.
However,your idea for outsourcing the reps to India is interesting. You could train them up on the cheap. In between the ski seasons they could return to call centre work.
Once established, you could give them all appropriate English names like Tarquin and Arabella and educate them on local customs like cravats and Pimms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
David Goldsmith, bit of a tongue-twister, but I think so. Let's say 1000 non-members skied with the reps (unless you know better). SCGB membership is , what, 30,000? But since the club I am sure gets membership through inertia sales because of failing to cancel direct debit, the active membership is probably quite a bit smaller, I'd be surprised if it were as great as 25,000 - could be smaller. So, let's assume 25,000. That would mean that (5355/30,000) x 100 % of the active membership skied with the reps last season (I wonder if that includes on the holidays?). 'scuse, I am fingers and thumbs, but that comes to, um, 18%.
Rather more than I had thought. Some members who like the reps won't have skied with them last year for one reason or another. I am one. Even so, it means that many members do not ski with the reps - and I can't see for the life of me why they belong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Is that about right? |
Would seem right....and a completely pointless statistic. Whether someone has skied with a rep previously that year or not has little to say about whether the repping service is valued or value for money. Total number of member ski-days is what you should be interested in if you are trying to beat this drum yet again, and possibly also total number of members who skied with a rep as a proportion of those who were in a rep resort during the season (a number which of course is impossible to determine).
Bode Swiller, quite. Well, it'd probably satisfy one member....but kill the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, kind of you to give the implicit job offer - but it seems to me that you already have all the expertise, on, er, everything. Anyway, as I have already said, if the reps are done for, I would fold the lot - though I am puzzled why 82%, or whatever, of the members belong now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Latchigo, clearly there are various ways to skin a snowcat, but your argument is centred on the value of paying £50 for a season's repped skiing, including off-piste.
Let's leave aside the quibbling point that you're not (as I understand it) expected to hog the rep - i.e. ski with the rep for more than 2-3 days in a week's skiing - because it's a good deal for someone who skis with reps.
The real point, in terms of the Club's cost-benefit (I agree with you about an analysis) is that roughly 4000 different members seem to be skiing with reps each winter ... out of a total of 33,566 members (gross membership, including family members) or 19,139 members (subscription payers).
It's a premium service for which no premium membership price is paid. A bit like getting the main course of a meal for nothing. I suggest you tuck in while the going's good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
GrahamN, I've no control over which statistics are presented in the Club's annual report. I'm just working with what's presented. If the directors wish to add a figure for the total number of 'skier days' or 'member days' with reps, that can all be part of the picture.
That said, I think the core justification for repping has to be based on the number of different members availing themselves of the service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
David Goldsmith, I agree with you that £50 is a bargain regardless of the amount of off-piste.
However, I do not see it as proper 100% off-piste guiding. It never was.
Do not forget that there was often an option to pay extra for a qualified local guide one day a week. This was always (quite rightly) an extra expense shared between the participating members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
achilles,
| Quote: |
I am puzzled why 82%, or whatever, of the members belong now
|
I thought the Freshtracks prog looked good and, although I've only been on one trip, I really enjoyed it. And the discounts (I joined in the first place to get a good car hire deal) are very valuable, though now I am reading on here that discounts are readily available in other ways. Must admit that I am beginning to waver a bit myself...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
As it now resembles several other threads in that hallowed archive 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Hurtle, Perhaps if you were in a rep resort and took the opportunity to ski with the rep for a day you might have a different outlook.
I appreciate the points that GrahamN made that not every member skis in a rep resort every year. If you liked Austria there are not that many rep resorts available, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| if the reps are done for, I would fold the lot - though I am puzzled why 82%, or whatever, of the members belong now. |
Inertia.
And, of the remaining 18%, most would probably remain as members. I was clearly joking above about scrapping everything but, in reality, you could get away with stripping out loads of money-eating fringe activities and refocus to give members what they really could use. Why, for example, have an office near London? Why not several satellite offices in the alps? (phones work out there too you know). Why not buy a few club hotels in a few strategically important resorts? Take on full-time UIAGM guides? None of that may be the answer but time for some re-invention methinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bode Swiller, But daHling the Ball simply HAS to be in London
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin, couldn't make the last few as my balls were clashing. Mwa, mwa, mwaaaa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, But daHling the Ball simply HAS to be in London |
There is also one in somewhere like Manchester for Norvern monkies.
I must admit I like the idea of foregoing drinks at the AGM and giving David Goldsmith vouchers to do missionary work on the club's behalf in that part of the world. Travel to each venue to be by carbon-friendly means. Free green wristbands for all attendees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hurtle, I wonder if the holidays contribute to the above statistics. All but one of the holidays (and that was marred only by poor food and the club gave some cash back) that I have been on have been very good. But they are very expensive for a humble punter like myself. And their scope - for me - is also limited to 'Peak Experience'. Yet I have found, to my astonishment, that other skiers will ski with me, eve though (ahem) I am of a 'certain age'.
boredsurfin, but this is kinda fun 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
duplicate post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
