 Poster: A snowHead
|
Better get scribbling then 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Scribble away Cathy. I enjoy your posts.  Take no notice of these 'cautions'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Where the Hell's this going? This thread's about how the SCGB appears to us great unwashed; And how it’s, if capable, going to recognising its more blatant faults and change them? . . . More, is it worth our effort?
Should we be looking to a more flexible, responsive organisation that’s “”forged in the white heat of new technology””!!!
We have to respect the skills, knowledge and history that past members of the club have earned but I get the feeling that the current attitude is to protect and demand that respect for its current efforts that are a pale shadow of its founders . . .
So:
In it’s past, the club was unique in promoting skiing as ‘new’ and exiting sport to join.
Today, the club is acting to preserve its position of privilege in the face of mounting competition.
Gerry and co (and even DG) are fighting a valiant rearguard action to protect what has blatantly become an anachronism because change of such a monumental nature for the club to become relevant and inclusive to the vast majority is going to mean blood on the floor . . . who’s blood?
Red Dave, you may want to listen to a bit more ‘locker-room’ gossip – 90/91 Val Despair, a rep boasting that ‘the club’s great, this trip, I’ll make more that 4K after expenses’. How and whether true or not, it’s not an image that instils a ‘warm fuzzy feeling’! [ Moderator: That, of course, amounts to gossip, the operative words being "whether true or not"]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Masque, I can't talk with authority for the days before I became a rep, however I can ensure you that reps cannot claim more than a few quid in expenses (max £20 / week I think, certainly not more); this is purely for buying presents for resort officials (Tourist Office Director / Lift Director, etc.) and proper reciepts MUST be submitted. A lot of reps I know buy the presents but don't bother claiming the expenses.
I really can't believe that it was possible to make 4K in those days - I've NEVER spoken to a rep (or overheard one) say that. Maybe this guy had a career as a Merchant Banker!
I certainly didn't come away from my 3 weeks in Flaine last year with a net financial gain (far from it). BUT, I had a great time skiing with many members; a few reps (also paid up members I hasten to add) on holiday; and some non members; and socialising with all in the evenings.
Members are actively encouraged to give feedback on reps, either good or bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Masque, you are an absorber of knowledge - Ichak Adizes "Corporate Lifecycles" or "How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis" Both medium to heavy reading, at least I think so.
I think that his lifecycles of organisations explains fairly well what is happening at the SCGB. Probably not rescueable except by revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
Where the Hell's this going? This thread's about how the SCGB appears to us great unwashed; And how it’s, if capable, going to recognise its more blatant faults and change them? . . . More, is it worth our effort?
Should we be looking to a more flexible, responsive organisation that’s “”forged in the white heat of new technology””!!!
We have to respect the skills, knowledge and history that past members of the club have earned but I get the feeling that the current attitude is to protect and demand that respect for its current efforts that are a pale shadow of its founders . . .
So:
In it’s past, the club was unique in promoting skiing as ‘new’ and exiting sport to join.
Today, the club is acting to preserve its position of privilege in the face of mounting competition.
Gerry and co (and even DG) are fighting a valiant rearguard action to protect what has blatantly become an anachronism because change of such a monumental nature for the club to become relevant and inclusive to the vast majority is going to mean blood on the floor . . . who’s blood?
Red Dave, you may want to listen to a bit more ‘locker-room’ gossip – 90/91 Val Despair, a rep boasting that ‘the club’s great, this trip, I’ll make more that 4K after expenses’. How and whether true or not, it’s not an image that instils a ‘warm fuzzy feeling’! [ Moderator: That, of course, amounts to gossip, the operative words being "whether true or not"] |
(edit by author) Yes it is hearsay, but it’s first person and not being a member I've no basis to judge right or wrong - however in subsequent conversations it became clear that he was leveraging his position to gain benefits that were not cash so it may well be down to the guile of the rep rather than the club practice. And to be honest the guy just creeped me out! Whist the others were nowhere near as crass, they were all quite happy to declare that being a club rep was good for their pocket. I didn’t think much about that, I just thought it went with the territory. I was more interested in the attitude . . . which, to a straggle arsed old boarder, wasn’t ‘inviting’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, A couple of points. First of all I do not know the code of practice of Ski Club of GB reps. I have not received the training. The reps are issued with a manual, but I know little of what it contains.
There are, of course, obvious 'rules' of proper conduct which spread across society. Anyone representing any club, company, political party, nation or other body is responsible for unholding the reputation of that body.
If, Masque, you wish to PM me with dates, circumstances, identities etc., I'll drop a line to SCGB HQ and request an official response which can be published here. Or you can do it yourself. This kind of comment is obviously damaging to the Club and it genuinely concerns me, as I'm sure it does any member of the organisation.
"Hearsay" (your word, not mine) is better replaced with facts. I've not been aware of any SCGB rep using their position to obtain financial advantage, but do not question your word in reporting your concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 have heard, and it could be hearsay, that there are certain US/Canadian resorts where the Ski Club rep is unlikely to ever meet more than a few UK skiers all season. I have heard, again hearsay, that in one resort in Canada, the rep signed up 20 new members in the course of the season. From a commercial point of view did anyone do an analysis of the cost involved in gaining those members. In which case why is there a Ski Club rep present and how is that funded. I have the feeling, which is possibily unjustified, that Ski Club reps enjoy visiting interesting resorts, but are less likely to want to spend time in a resort which they do not consider to be worthy of the presence of a Ski Club rep.
Perhaps Gerry can deliver a riposte that highlights that the Ski Club are much more likely to have reps in Arinsal and Soll than Whistler and Jackson Hole.
I feel that David Goldsmith has a valid point when he questions these issues, particularly when the funding appears to fall upon the membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David@traxvax, no audit of Ski Club reps is produced to members, not that one would necessarily expect personal performance to be circulated. The annual report does not state how many members have been recruited by reps, or at ski shows, or via the internet etc. The annual report does not state how many different Ski Club members skied with reps during the year.
Thus, no light can be shone on your points. But I've been encouraging HQ to provide members with more info. because I think openness is a good thing. Also - not related - no financial information is provided about the Club's websites (skiclub.co.uk and skiandboard.co.uk). This might be considered commercially sensitive, but the Club's magazine is accounted for.
I hasten to point out that I don't raise questions just to raise questions. The way a Club allocates its resources partly determines its success in attracting new blood, and if the Club isn't attracting enough new blood it may be a function of resources not being put to best use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
David Goldsmith, I'll grub through my records when I get back and PM you. To be honest it's not something that concerned me since I always thought they were employed by the club. But getting discounts on hire and purchase of clothing and kit in certain local shops (just like the holiday operators) was certainlybeing pushed. It’s only recently though these forums that I’ve become better informed. Which kinda highlights the communication issues of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Certain reps that I've met in the past have taken advantage of the system, but to be fair anyone who reps, waitresses, cooks or whatever can usually get some very advantageous deals, especially if it's not their first visit and they know some of the locals 4k (I'm assuming it was pounds not Frog francs) would seem a lot but several resort workers I have met manage to get up to arround £500 discount off goods and purchases over a season
e.g restaurant discounts (and free meals)
ski hire and purchase discounts
bar discounts (and most of all free drinks)
Certainly a rep who skis with punters all week could get at least £50 worth of drinks bought for them per week as a minimum, a rep who pushed things to their advantage could get a lot better than this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a lot of 'hearsay' involved here, and as we all know rumours can get out of hand. I'm not saying all reps are perfect, and I'm certainly not saying I am (I'm still learning after all), but I'm convinced most do it because they love skiing, and love skiing with other people. I suppose it goes with the territory that we are likely to be pro SCGB otherwise we wouldn't be doing it. However, as I have made clear in other posts, I am not totally uncritical of some aspects of the club.
David G, I totally agree, reps are representative of the club and have a responsibility to the membership to uphold the reputation of the club. As I mentioned before, we are paid up members too.
David@traxvax, numbers of members who ski in resorts are logged (by the reps) and compiled over the season (by the reps manager). If not enough members ski with reps they can be dropped from the programme - as in Killington for the forthcoming season. From a personal point of view, I would be privelledged to rep in any of the 44 resorts serviced by the SCGB - my preference is normally a French or French speaking resort; but that's purely because I am a Francophile who has lived in France and now unfortunately lives back in the UK. I've also skied in many other countries outside of repping, and maybe I'll rep in one of these in the future.
Yes I have had a lot of discounts while repping - 10% of a tranciever, 25% of ski hire, etc., etc.; the same that other club members can get. I aslo got saissonaire prices in most bars, and the odd free drink (at the bars' expense). Yes a few members bought me drinks at the end of the day or in the evening, and I bought quite a few back - isn't that called rounds? I also recommended restaurants to members, but only those restaurants that I had eaten in (and paid for) and enjoyed the meal - anyone who has met me knows that food is a VERY important part of my life; I would NOT recommend a restuarant where I didn't enjoy the food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Masque, sorry I meant to mention - boarders are very welcome when I'm repping; as are monokis, bladers, whatever... There are boarding reps too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
when I was in Whistler I used to take about ten people to the Chinese restaurant every Wednesday. The manager said I could eat for free but I took a 10% discount on the whole bill so everyone could benefit.
Freeloading just isn't my thing. Like Dave I can't be bothered to claim the expenses. I'm not overly keen on free drinks but some people insist, but you try to get them a round in at some point if they will let you. Some people insist on buying you dinner and lunch sometimes too. I know I always like to buy the rep a drink after a good day myself, more often than not they will get you one back.
I'm self employed, so while repping I'm not earning.
Good luck finding that Val D rep from 91, David. When you've done that, I believe Lord Lucan is still wanted for questioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Red Dave, agreed on the broader thing. I'm a boarder friendly rep! I've skied with many a boarder and I know about where not to top etc..If I screw up and it gets too flat, I always offer them a pole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Think personaly, I'd be more worried about where you might poke it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| PG wrote: |
| So Gerry, to redress the balance a little, what do you think could do with either a face-lift, or perhaps even more drastic surgery, amputation even, at the SCGB - both in terms of structure and attitude? |
Posted this a while back. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
PG, (I'm playing devil's advocate here), I don't recall ever seeing you place a postive comment about SCGB, if you want Gerry to redress the balance a little to talk about negative issues, how about you also redress the balance and start talking about positive ones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Ray Zorro, quite correct... but then you'll find it hard, if not impossible to track down a negative comment about the SCGB proper either, seeing as I know very little about the organisation. I have only commented on opinions voiced here, and queried certain aspects of the operation relating to SCGB involvement with the governing competitive sports body that I find intriguing.
My question is therefore perfectly justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
PG, I admit your question is justified, but the implication is to yet again draw attention to something that is (in someones opinion) not at its best. Don't you find all this "knocking" tiresome? Surely it is in the best interests of all who love this sport to "talk up" the positive aspect of it - even SCGB. They are not rivals to us here, but another part of the snowsport/snowrecreation scene and they may be a useful/good club for some visitors here to join, but all this negativity may make people disinterested in the sport altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, that's your interpretation, not mine. As I've said above, I've yet to knock the SCGB. Since when does asking for an opinion constitute implied criticism? Sorry but that's a definite 'straw man'.
If you check out my posts, rather than making inaccurate, sweeping statements, you'll find I have equally criticised OTT comments from SCGB detractors.
Gerry has been a stalwart supporter of the SCGB and it would be interesting to learn if he thinks there are any faultlines at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, You misunderstand my last posting. I guess that is down to me posting in haste before going out. I was not accusing you of anything. It was the potential posting of Gerry's negative opinions that I was referring to. And when I said "Don't you find all this "knocking" tiresome", while I can see now that you may have interpretted it as a personal attack, it was all the general "knocking" to which I was referring. You had already informed us in your previous post that you had made few if any negative comments yourself - and I was very happy to believe that, there is no way I am going to reread over 3500 postings to check for accuracy!!
Not sure what you mean by 'straw man'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| there is no way I am going to reread over 3500 postings to check for accuracy!! |
With the wonders of technology it's not as hard as you might think. You can use the search facility with a combination of username and forum and hey presto, a mere 87 posts to check through!
Back to your point, without criticism there is no debate, and without debate, no democracy. Far better if it's constructive of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, just reread some, and it may even be that we are coming from the same place. http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=46830#46830. Or am I missing the point again?
I do agree with you about debate and criticism, and Masque started this thread with a very valid reason, with the age limit of reps, but then heresay, speculation, personal preference and personalities crept in and some of these may not be worth discussing on the same level as the factual information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ray Zorro, actually I think Masque started this thread to take the Michael out of me, which is fine because I'm not called Michael.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Only just seen this thread
| Gerry wrote: |
If I have anything to do with it, this age thing WILL be looked at again and thrown in the bin. Actually, the 50 limit isn't a hard and fast rule anyway. This was stated at the AGM in 2002.
|
I'm not sure it was a hard and fast rule even before that.
4 years ago, when I was 52 I was on a Gold standard SCGB holiday in La Grave, led by Caroline Stuart-Taylor. She asked me if I had thought of becoming a rep and I pointed out that I was over the age. She said "Well, exceptions can always be made".
Last year I went back to La Grave with the SCGB . We were led by Don H, who is 59. (He has his gold badge, but doesn't quite ski to that standard now, but is a lovely guy and a good leader). He pointed out that this was the last time he would be leading since leaders must be under 60. (I assume it is the same for reps).
However I notice he is back this year leading another Purple/Gold holiday to Alagna. What's going on here?
He also said they were clamping down on age limits generally and when I got to 60 (I am now 56) I wouldn't be allowed on these ski holidays any more and would have to ski with the over 50s holidays (I'm told that actually they are usually all over 60) on the basis I wouldn't be able to keep up. (Some of my fellow skiers very kindly said this was unfair as I was the fastest skier on the holiday).
I am already finding it hard to find holidays of the standard I want. There was only one pure Gold standard holiday on the Ski Club books this year!! Why? Is there really such a lack of good skiers wanting to go on these holidays?
One of my chief reasons for being a member is that the Ski Club run holidays where I can find people of my standard to ski with.
The La Grave holiday was Purple/Gold standard, but I was very disappointed by the caution of the guides - until the last day we had only skied one couloir (the easiest one) and couloirs are the point of La Grave, aren't they?
Perhaps they felt the group standard wasn't up to it? Are guides getting more worried about getting sued?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowball wrote: |
| .... Are guides getting more worried about getting sued? |
I suspect so. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Masque wrote: |
I think that Gerry is trying too hard to be nice to me and the club at the same time, and as such his message became ambiguous. I was just using this stupid little rule to illustrate a general malaise that’s metastasised throughout the club. That he’s sincere is without question, I just wonder which will survive, his head or the wall he’s banging it against?
 |
Oh dear, Masque, after reading this thread I have little wonder why those reps gave you, shall we say, less than welcoming vibes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Tim Brown, don't knock it - Masque is always good for a strong passionate argument - eh sorry, discusion - it keeps us from getting bored and falling asleep over the keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Tim Brown, I’ve just caught back up with this thread and read back through it. DG was off the mark when he thinks that it was a p*sstake on his dotage. David is demonstrably an experienced, skilled and respected skier. I used him as an example to illustrate the public ‘exclusive/excludive(sic) face of the SCGB. It’s completely irrelevant that there is much internal debate, hand wringing and ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink’ rule flexibility within the club, it’s not reflected in its public persona.
Now I’m not a troll yet I do hold particularly strong views about discrimination in all its forms (I also think that those who accept discrimination, either actively or passively, should be taken out and horsewhipped). In this case a skier’s ability, fitness and strength is openly being prejudged simply by dint of age. This is repulsive to many people and by all accounts in this thread, particularly those voiced by the members, unnecessary.
Yet even NOW, it still sits in the front menu of the club site.
I very well may not be ski club or rep material and I’ve probably been unlucky in the reps that I’ve met, but I’m reasonably well educated and traveled, don’t have a strong regional (or for that matter a yank) accent and to allow me (at that time) to indulge in 5 or 6 weeks on the snow, I traveled ‘budget class’ and I got the impression that this played a significant role in the value judgment decision processes of the reps I met.
I did enjoy taking a rise out of Gerry; Apologists who are unable to sense the irony in their own statements deserve the emotional kicking they get and the more umbrage displayed just illustrated the flaccid excuses for something acknowledged to be inexcusable. For my smug satisfaction I here apologise to Gerry and to anyone else who feels insulted.
But what’s changed? The SCGB still projects a divisive and discriminatory attitude and glancing through the threads here, is still managing to repulse a significant number of the contributors to this site.
Where to now? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Tim Brown, Win! Good grief, what's to win? Gerry did not agree with me, he equivocated and filibustered and was called to book for doing so. He and others tramped all over this thread making excuses and claiming that this rule is only paid lip service to (the term hypocrite rises in my gorge). Yet at the same time proselytising the benefits of joining a discriminatory organisation.
There’s nothing to win here, even from robust discussion, apart from having divisive and blatantly needless regulation within the SCGB removed.
The loss to the club of many passionate skiers may ultimately result in its demise as they become more organised in other groups.
And having looked and seen a surprising level of animosity toward the SCGB, you may want to consider its cause(s) and how many people harbour similar feelings without voicing them.
A club is only as good as it public face yet for some, the only cheeks on display there are those usually hidden by pants. Snowsport is an activity defined by ability not age so stop defending the indefensible.
Lastly: I represent no one apart from myself and for you to imply otherwise demonstrates a level of prejudice that is both unjustified and gravely insulting to the other participants in this forum. You can by all means (attempt) to rip me a second ‘rs’ole for holding the opinions I do . . . and if your argument’s good enough you might be able to change them.
But the others here deserve, and I expect to see, an apology!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Hmm, looks like Tim Brown's post has been deleted - moderated or self-removed??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Yes, a little crevasse in the thread has appeared. I can almost guarantee you, Cathy, that no moderator action has taken place. You can trust that snowHeads moderators would indicate an action as drastic as deleting a posting.
Perhaps Tim has exercised his own rights, in which case he's welcome to re-post at any point below so that Masque's response doesn't appear to be responding to voices in his own head!
We can insert the comments into the thread at the relevant point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Tim cannot completely delete his post if it is not the last in the thread - which it wasn't. Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
kuwait_ian, was Tim Brown's post visible for some time after Masque's reply appeared? I'm just wondering if they somewhat spookily self-deleted and posted simultaneously?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a feeling that 2 of Tim Brown's posts have been deleted. I think there was one after John Wells replied to his first comment, which also appears to have gone now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh . . . the voices . . . "you are not a crap skier, you are a snow god . . . whatever the other voices say".
Yeah, I think that Tim's post has been withdrawn, why?
I don't mind you taking a pop at me especially if you think I deserve it - though I do prefer cogent argument no matter how 'forceful'. I welcome debate on this matter since it may provoke action within the club to look at its systems/structures/strictures in a less introspective light.
But Tim, the other people here deserve respect no matter how you think about me
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Alan Craggs, think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there's been no moderation here. Move along now folks,there's nothing to see
No, the only explanation here that I can see is that Tim had second thoughts about his post and deleted it himself while Masque was writing his response. Perhaps he re-read it and realised that he had unintentionally insulted someone/everyone... whatever.
Of course, now Masque can't delete his response because there are posts following it though he can edit it.
Masque, if u want the response deleted just say the word and we'll do a tidy up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
