 Poster: A snowHead
|
On the surface this might seem a preposterous suggestion. How could a 103-year-old private members' club be taken over by a one-man business?
Firstly, let me stress that by 'snowHeads' I refer to the community of fine people here assembled ... not snowHeads plc, which could not make such a bid.
The Ski Club of Great Britain is owned by its members and controlled by them. Each member has a vote to exercise that control, either in terms of electing the board of directors (Council) or by passing resolutions at general meetings. The Club has substantial assets, is the British national ski club, and has a turnover of £3.5 million. Its operations are important, in the sense that the Club is the self-styled "spokesbody of British skiers" and is very much a centre of attention for the media when skiing is on the agenda.
Whether British skiers wish to be represented by a national club (currently 3% belong to the SCGB) is very much a matter for us, as individuals.
I was personally very disheartened by the events of February 2004, when this community was expelled from the Club's forum, because I felt my Club was distancing itself from new blood ... and very refreshing new ideas and opinion.
What do snowHeads feel about the Club's future? Can it be relevant to them? Is it irrelevant? Do we need a national ski club? Is it snowHeads' ambition, independently, to be a competing national ski club?
Getting back to the votes, my understanding is that a mere few hundred votes (out of 18,000 - odd) determine the results of Council elections and resolutions. So, to some extent, an apathetic membership has sowed the seeds of change!
It would be interesting to read snowHeads' views on all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
What do snowHeads feel about the Club's future? Can it be relevant to them? Is it irrelevant
|
I am just in skiing for the fun of it. A 1 man ownership of the only skiing web site I surf regularly suits me fine. No committes, no power mad monsters. No thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Do we care? They looked very much like a bunch of boring old farts last time I saw them en masse - the sort of people who wear 'amusing' club T-shirts and only have one topic of conversation. Bit too Howard & Hilda for my liking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I can only comment on the recent public persona of the Club and judge that against the musings of its older members (and not just one). I hear stories of a social club that was a lot of fun and saw it's membership as its market. That seems to not be the case in recent years as it appears to see it's membership as a cash cushion whilst it spreads its corporate fingers wider and wider into income generation. I don't see it as a club, just a business like any other (and no better than any) that just happens to have a social club on the side.
Could a coterie of snowheads take it over . . . certainly, but why? A better question might be, could Snowheads, the social side, develop into a viable alternative ... and that's when the question of membership, ownership et-al will need to be discussed ...
... without rancour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
In the past, to hook up with like minded individuals, you needed a central body to co-ordinate that activity. With the internet, it is dead easy to meet like minded individuals. The traditional club will give way to "collectives" (or whatever else we should be called) like this.
| Quote: |
Lizzard, They looked very much like a bunch of boring old farts last time I saw them en masse - the sort of people who wear 'amusing' club T-shirts and only have one topic of conversation.
|
Careful - you could be describing the EOSB there 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Abominable snowHead,
Are you suggesting a bloodless coup. Vote them all out of office and put our own people in ?
Have they any assets worth stripping ?
Ray Zorro,
I think anybody comparing EOSB to Ski Club holidays would do well to look at how much Ski Club holidays cost. SCGB would not be able to offer even a weekend at the cost of the EOSB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latchigo, I'm most certainly not suggesting a coup. Change is best achieved by consensus and openness - hence an open thread like this, rather than secret scheming.
It's just interesting to know whether British skiers feel the need to be nationally represented and - if so -whether snowHeads would want the SCGB to be something different? Since our community originally evolved from an SCGB initiative it could potentially grow large enough to control its mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| It's just interesting to know whether British skiers feel the need to be nationally represented... |
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| It's just interesting to know whether British skiers feel the need to be nationally represented... |
No. |
Ditto. Don't need to be represented, don't want to be represented. If people want to join a club to get some group benefits that's fine by me, but in no way can they or should they speak for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 we took over the SCGB i wonder who would want to be in charge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Latchigo wrote: |
The Abominable snowHead,
Have they any assets worth stripping ?
|
The Ski Club's statutory accounts (2005) stated:
Total assets less current liabilities: £2,616,797 [including property reserves of £2,165,664]
The Club's membership is 18,340 (in subscription units).
I make that £142 in assets per member - but I'm not an accountant, and I've no idea if that is a valid calculation.
The Club's constitution was re-written five years ago (the Memorandum and Articles of Association) partly to discourage 'carpet-baggers', as explained by the Treasurer at the last AGM. This defines that a fair chunk of the membership must approve the tabling of a resolution at a general meeting of the Club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
I assume you are joking although it is an interesting proposition.
Goldsmith could never do it of course because any position of leadership requires the essential quality of responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| Latchigo wrote: |
The Abominable snowHead,
Have they any assets worth stripping ?
|
The Ski Club's statutory accounts (2005) stated:
Total assets less current liabilities: £2,616,797 [including property reserves of £2,165,664]
The Club's membership is 18,340 (in subscription units).
I make that £142 in assets per member - but I'm not an accountant, and I've no idea if that is a valid calculation.. |
The calculation is valid, you have taken the correct balance sheet total, and divided it by the total membership. But note that assets are valued at historic cost on a prudent basis ( accounting policy ). Therefore the biggest asset, the property at Wimbledon, is in the accounts at its cost price ( when was it bought? ) of £2,266,174. However the market value of that property will have gone up by say 5% + per annum since it was boought so that the market value per share would be more than £142 per member. Also may be a premium to be added-in for any goodwill/future earnings potential of the club which may uplift it a bit further.
So, bargain basement £142. Market value £165 ?? plus potentail goodwill £185??.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The Ski Club moved from Eaton Square to Wimbledon ten years ago this summer - 1996.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
So round about the same money as when the AA changed ownership.
RAC windfalls would be more enticing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The Abominable snowHead, I should'nt be encouraging you, but you've drawn me in.
Assuming a 7.5% per annum increase in property prices, the componding effect over 10 years is 2.06 on £2,266,174 which give a current MV of the property at £4,668,318 an uplift of £2,402,144 on its cost. So a reasonable MV per share IMV would be ( ignoring any element of goodwill ( which you have probably destroyed  ) £254 per share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Hi Hibernia The Great Dictator is one of my favorite films
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
My answer to the thread title is a NO....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While we are in a takeover mood could we include the Downhill Only Club
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| riverman wrote: |
| While we are in a takeover mood could we include the Downhill Only Club |
The FIS could do with a bit od a shake-up as well. Could we add them to the list?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Why don't we buy a resort?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Why don't we buy a resort? |
Now you're talking. Zermatt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Why don't we buy a resort? |
What a bloody marvellous idea! I'm sure we could give Intrawest a run for their money 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Let's get this all agreed during the EOSB - let admin know he's a resort tycoon when he returns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was a member of the SCGB way back in the 80s and discovered that as a Scottish based skier (at the time - am now in Bristol) it offered me nothing as far as I could see apart from a sub-standard magazine about posh folk going on holiday to Davos etc. From my perspective it came across as a club run by hooray henries for hooray henries which perhaps in part reflects the difference between Scottish skiing which is traditionally far less elitist and English skiing which, pardon me if you disagree, is traditionally highly elitist.
I have no experience of the SCGB in recent years apart from buying their latest magazine off the newsstands, which to my intense surprise I found to now be exceptionally good. However, I should add that my inbred 'Scottish inverted snobbery' (and I'm proud of it!) makes me cringe somewhat and believe that it's still all a bit elitist when I see pictures of SCGB black tie balls - see hibernia's post above. I don't know if in relity the club is any less elitist than it used to be but this forum is, in my opiniojn, a nice open and non-elitist place where I'd far rather be so they're mostly irrelevant (apart from producing a now decent mag.).
As for representing British skiing I'd suspect that if the SCGB are representing anyone it's *some* skiiers in south eastern England or more precisely London rather than British skiing as a whole (and remember that importantly includes Scotland where we have our only real native resorts). That being the case I'd suggest they're more of a hinderence than a help and a more open forum (like this) is of far more value so guys if you can stage a coup d'etat go for it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
roga, I think David Goldsmith was the editor of that 'sub-standard' magazine you read back in the 80s. Maybe David would like to comment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
roga, the SCGB claims to represent British skiers only in the cobwebs of DG's memory.
Tim Brown, editor of the 80s magazine? Elizabeth Hussey, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
roga, Tim and Nick
Thanks for the nostalgia!
As Nick says, the editor of Ski Survey through the 80s was Elisabeth Hussey (I was equipment editor). In actual fact we made radical changes to the mag's content and design from the mid-80s, ensuring widespread newstrade distribution and sales which peaked at around 12,000, plus the posted copies to members. That was part-achieved by adopting a less up-market and more journalistic approach.
It's good to hear that roga likes the mag now, and a shame that it's not selling stronger in spite of this - only about 2000 magazines are currently sold per issue beyond the SCGB membership distribution.
Nick, perhaps we'd better establish - officially - whether the Club's 1995 mission statement to be "spokesbody of British skiers" is still live and kicking. I don't make things up, sunshine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
David Goldsmith, I think we need to establish when exactly roga was reading the magazine, don't you? Maybe he'd read it after you'd thought you'd changed things for the better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, by the way, "spokesbody of British skiers" seems to be central to ALL your arguments. If the scgb on longer claims to speak on behalf of British skiers then most of your rubbish will evaporate into thin air!
Can you show us a current document which claims this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The Abominable snowHead, roga says it was sub-standard to him, so aren't you interested in when he read it? Or is he irrelevant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Tim, as far as I know it's been our Club's mission, since 1995, to speak for all British skiers, and regard all British skiers as potential members. Seems perfectly logical to me, and ties in with the Club's media profile as a national skiing contact for expert contact to the press and broadcasters.
You have a problem with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The Abominable snowHead, show me the scgb's current mission statement and the bit where it claims to be the "spokesbody of British skiers". Until you've don't that I won't be able to believe you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Abominable snowHead,
so there is no current mission statement where the scgb makes this claim? Doesn't sound like they are claiming it now then? In fact, you seem to be the only one who is - plus, of course, all the people you misled into thinking that was part of the ski club's current mission.
Could you please be more factual in the future? It's a shame you seem to need to invent things to back your arguments up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gimme a break, Tim. Our Club stated in 1995 that the mission (which isn't something one bins) was to strengthen its position as "spokesbody for British skiers".
I have invented nothing.
It's been suggested to me that you are related or closely associated in some way with someone who works for the Ski Club. Your approach is beginning to feel like harrassment, and does come across as motivated to cause damage ... which is odd because I've belonged to the Club since 1962.
Could you please inform the community whether you are related or closely associated with someone who works for the Club? Are you performing on behalf of any other party?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
This is starting to get ridiculous. Can't you guys move your party over to the SCGB forum and continue over there? (Sorry SZK, don't think you have an invite there!) I know I don't have to read it but I really don't like such personal attacks and I don't think it suits the spirit of snowHeads. I've always been of the opinion that it was quite good to have a section here just for SCGB chat but I really think it should now be closed. Perhaps we could have an auto-mod so every time you type SCGB you get logged out of snowHeads 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy Coins, Brilliant idea. Logged out or set on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
