 Poster: A snowHead
|
| po wrote: |
| ... Central to the challenge for Council and members is whether to continue to put holiday company first, or to focus instead on membership and what a club would look like for a wider group. |
Yes, my point.
Their switch to a winter travel company rather than a club was massive for them.
Calling a company a "club" doesn't change the fact that they are competing with travel companies head on.
It's not a club of skiers, but a set of subscribers for whom subscription makes no sense other than if you take their own-brand package holidays.
Of course they just failed to recruit someone with experience of running a travel company as their boss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I agree. Therefore SCGB needs to focus on providing attractive holidays at the right cost and ensuring members have access to good travel insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| philwig wrote: |
It's not a club of skiers, but a set of subscribers for whom subscription makes no sense other than if you take their own-brand package holidays. |
Yes, and while , for example premiership football supporters subscribe to their supporters club in order to be able to get tickets, there's no reason for a skier to remain faithful to one particular supplier, any more that you would buy a £50 membership to be allowed to shop at Tesco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
£50 membership to be allowed to shop at Tesco.
|
Hmmm…Costco for skiers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Ski Costco of Great Britain TM
You heard it here first! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| AL9000 wrote: |
Ski Costco of Great Britain TM
You heard it here first! |
Yeah but I registered skicostcoofgreatbritain.com and ski-costco-of-great-britain.org you're now into expensive and protracted legals with me to get them transferred. What a loser. My plan was to sell bulk memberships, minimum 24 per pack (+ VAT) but you do get a 4 foot long hot dog for £1.43 and an eye test.
Meanwhile......
| pisteoff wrote: |
| Interesting though that we both can be bothered to comment ... |
Well I guess it's a case of rubber-necking a car crash while witnessing a massive opportunity being squandered at a sadly alarming rate. A four million quid building spaffed up the wall in a few short years - that's what it amounts to. The cash hit the bank account, things were going OK-ish, and nobody stopped to take a deep breath and seriously think about what the future should look like. And this was the pre-Covid scenario.
| philwig wrote: |
| Calling a company a "club" doesn't change the fact that they are competing with travel companies head on. |
Correct. They even commit the cardinal sin of promoting their rivals. It's madness. You either are a tour operator or you are a travel agent or you are an affiliate.
| Jehu wrote: |
| ..........ensuring members have access to good travel insurance. |
If you look back at the recent accounts you'll see that it was the only thing that made a positive contribution. But then they switched from the provider who was generating those sales and now I would think, mainly because of Covid, that route to happiness has been boogered. It's a tricky one because the club doesn't control what happens with insurance, they are just middle men selling someone else's product. Big price increases can be imposed, schemes can get cut. Others in the ski insurance biz, like MPI, don't currently have underwriters and can't sell policies. Same can so easily happen to SCGB right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ski Club of Great Britain Ltd company accounts to 30 April 2021 are available. If you can get in they are in the Members' area of the website.
A few 'first glance' takeaways:
Membership is now "about 16,000" as at 30th April. Why "about"? Don't they know the number?
Five years ago it was 27,789 so they have seen a 42% decline in membership over that period. The decline was 27% in the last year alone and you would expect that to have worsened over the summer. Covid will get the blame for much of it but the graph has been pointing steadily downwards long before that.
Turnover has gone from £4.7m (y/e April 2020) to £1.2m (y/e April 2021) and the operating LOSS is £332,666 - you may remember recently that the Chairman was telling us the ship had been steadied and the club was now showing a surplus of circa £300k - well it turns out that the surplus was only a surplus because the fair value of the Club's investments had increased by over £600k. Smoke & mirrors.
The club has also borrowed £700k against those investments and borrowed a further £100k bounce back loan.
21 staff on the payroll.
The full Report & Accounts doesn't appear to have been published yet. Clearly it's been a rough ride and they are going to need a stellar season.
Meanwhile I was bored late one night and found amusement in the editorial:
https://www.skiandboardonline.co.uk/club-talk/the-honorary-president-oct-213
| Quote: |
| I train young athletes on alpine glaciers during the summer and see them shrink with each season. |
Their parents must be horrified.
https://www.skiandboardonline.co.uk/club-talk/ski-club-reps-back-in-resort-for-2021/22
| Quote: |
| Our Reps are no longer Leaders, and therefore won’t be ‘leading’ in the traditional sense of the word. However, they will join our Members on snow, to help facilitate a great day of social skiing, using their extensive knowledge of the resort to suggest the best spots to find powder or a wide, curving blue run. |
That IS leading isn't it?
https://www.skiandboardonline.co.uk/club-talk/ski-club-appoints-general-manager
| Quote: |
| I look forward to playing my part in helping it to forge ahead for another 118 years |
Ambitious non? The last few guys have lasted a matter of months 
Again, does anyone care enough to actually read all the output?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
https://www.skiandboardonline.co.uk/club-talk/ski-club-reps-back-in-resort-for-2021/22
| Quote: |
| Our Reps are no longer Leaders, and therefore won’t be ‘leading’ in the traditional sense of the word. However, they will join our Members on snow, to help facilitate a great day of social skiing, using their extensive knowledge of the resort to suggest the best spots to find powder or a wide, curving blue run. |
That IS leading isn't it?
|
The whole of that page is a mass of contradictions and maybe is a neat example of the tensions at the heart of SCGB. Reps need to be "mountain qualified" and part of their role is passing on their safety knowledge and advising on "best spots" or runs. But despite this expertise they definitely won't be leading no siree. It's hard to imagine the dynamics at play
Members rock up - So what are we doing?
Rep - You choose I'm not leading
Mem - Well what's good?
Rep - Well if I were you I'd be looking at going to XXX
Mem - Where's that?
Rep - Well x, y, z turn at p, take second gully past q
Mem - Can't you just show us?
Rep - No I can advise you once you've made the decision as a group of members?
Mem - Right ho
Rep - Have you all got avy kit?
Mem - err some shiftiness
Rep - Well that's on you but in my safety capacity I advise you not to go
Mem- But you're not leading, are you coming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, in that scenario, it'd also fall to the rep to reduce the number of seats required for social dining that evening...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
https://www.skiandboardonline.co.uk/club-talk/ski-club-reps-back-in-resort-for-2021/22
| Quote: |
| Our Reps are no longer Leaders, and therefore won’t be ‘leading’ in the traditional sense of the word. However, they will join our Members on snow, to help facilitate a great day of social skiing, using their extensive knowledge of the resort to suggest the best spots to find powder or a wide, curving blue run. |
That IS leading isn't it?
|
The whole of that page is a mass of contradictions and maybe is a neat example of the tensions at the heart of SCGB. Reps need to be "mountain qualified" and part of their role is passing on their safety knowledge and advising on "best spots" or runs. But despite this expertise they definitely won't be leading no siree. It's hard to imagine the dynamics at play
Members rock up - So what are we doing?
Rep - You choose I'm not leading
Mem - Well what's good?
Rep - Well if I were you I'd be looking at going to XXX
Mem - Where's that?
Rep - Well x, y, z turn at p, take second gully past q
Mem - Can't you just show us?
Rep - No I can advise you once you've made the decision as a group of members?
Mem - Right ho
Rep - Have you all got avy kit?
Mem - err some shiftiness
Rep - Well that's on you but in my safety capacity I advise you not to go
Mem- But you're not leading, are you coming? |
Can’t see whats wrong there. All members without avy gear died in an avalanche, Rep (if he went) lived as he worr theirs and got pulled out. Rep didn’t/couldn’t command/direct/lead - QED
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Pruman, Thanks.
| Quote: |
That IS leading isn't it?
|
Yes. Which is the nub of the unresolved paradox. The Club cannot offer leading because it is too risky - they've lost a court case on the issue. If they offered this is could easily be seen as a professional service, next legal case would be the end of the club.
Members of a group can volunteer to lead, nothing illegal about that. In France you must have third party liability insurance - not unreasonable - the Club could and should provide this for members so they can lead others (voluntarily). Anyone reading this? Council - please add this to the membership package, it would be very helpful to the Club.
As for Reps they end up in an impossible position, and receive little support from the club. I have stopped resort leading because of this. Trouble is if you've been sent out by the Ski Club to be a 'rep' in a resort and then 'facilitate a great day of social skiing' you're piggy in the middle ... and worse still the club won't provide legal cover for you because to do so would be to encourage you to lead ...
Reps / leaders also face the conundrum that they have been trained to lead safely, and have a duty of care - whether or not they call themselves a leader.
In my view the club continues to fudge this issue and end up in no-mans land. Member led group skiing is core to the value offering, without it membership has few perks. People are voting with their feet ... Will SCGB do anything about this? Does it have a vision to turn things around?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Rep - Well that's on you but in my safety capacity I advise you not to go
Mem- But you're not leading, are you coming?
|
Excellent story - to continue:
Group enter secluded valley, all eye up the lovely un-skied powder on the N slopes.
Rep: Sorry, looks lovely, but I wouldn't go there
4 members: Fine your loss - wahooo ...
Rep and 2 members ski the skied out E slope, a bit jealous as lovely powder flies up on other side of the valley. Then watch with horror the avalanche sweep up their 4 new "friends". Rep (following his training) calls in rescue and manages an excellent search - how brilliantly he stayed calm and organised. They find 3 but 1 can't be found. Or was it 2?
Resort authorities bring in dogs find one dead and after a 8 hour probe search conclude that's it.
They liaise the rep and are impressed with his search and management, but are confused as to why he doesn't know how many had AV kit, why one didn't have any and why the group had split up. They are furious at the reckless behaviour, and loss of life.
Rep goes home, distraught. He won't sleep for a long time, maybe never again ski. He comforts himself that without him more would have died, he did a good job at rescue. And he couldn't stop people going over to that wind loaded slope, nor insist they wore AV kit could he?
Over the coming days the resort authorities interview him and then arrest him. He asks the club for legal support, but they say they can only act for the Club, not for him, he's on his own. But he does have insurance, that should help a little? (he then realises £50k doesn't go very far, and the insurer seems to say its not covered). Club asks why was he in that valley anyway? Why did he not follow his training and insist on AV kit? (his protests that he was confused and the club had told him not to lead falls on deaf ears)
There followed three years of legal cases, funded by friends, family and a second mortgage - many trips to France - and he ends up found guilty and in jail. Wrecked.
Realistic? Think SCGB needs to sort this out (please), and no I wouldn't rep and resort lead without this sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
What on earth do 21 people on the payroll do ? Not the website , for sure. Certainly helps to give an operating loss of 330K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@pisteoff, quite.
It's hard to imagine that Reps won't by virtue of their official status won't be in the firing line no matter how cute the SCGB consider their definitions of what reps do and don't do are. And more than possible that in a stressful situation or post trauma members won't remember the SCGB script and produce all sorts of problematic witness statements.
Fuzz - Why did you go there?
Mem - The Rep took us there
Mem - Err no sorry, we decided as a group..
Fuzz- Decided how?
Mem - Well the Rep suggested it and we all agreed
Fuzz- so were you the leader?
Mem (sweating) - No it was definitely the Rep, look, he was qualified and knew this place like the back of his hand
Fuzz - Ka- ching!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
| Quote: |
Rep - Well that's on you but in my safety capacity I advise you not to go
Mem- But you're not leading, are you coming?
|
Excellent story - to continue:
Group enter secluded valley, all eye up the lovely un-skied powder on the N slopes.
Rep: Sorry, looks lovely, but I wouldn't go there
4 members: Fine your loss - wahooo ...
Rep and 2 members ski the skied out E slope, a bit jealous as lovely powder flies up on other side of the valley. Then watch with horror the avalanche sweep up their 4 new "friends". Rep (following his training) calls in rescue and manages an excellent search - how brilliantly he stayed calm and organised. They find 3 but 1 can't be found. Or was it 2?
Resort authorities bring in dogs find one dead and after a 8 hour probe search conclude that's it.
They liaise the rep and are impressed with his search and management, but are confused as to why he doesn't know how many had AV kit, why one didn't have any and why the group had split up. They are furious at the reckless behaviour, and loss of life.
Rep goes home, distraught. He won't sleep for a long time, maybe never again ski. He comforts himself that without him more would have died, he did a good job at rescue. And he couldn't stop people going over to that wind loaded slope, nor insist they wore AV kit could he?
Over the coming days the resort authorities interview him and then arrest him. He asks the club for legal support, but they say they can only act for the Club, not for him, he's on his own. But he does have insurance, that should help a little? (he then realises £50k doesn't go very far, and the insurer seems to say its not covered). Club asks why was he in that valley anyway? Why did he not follow his training and insist on AV kit? (his protests that he was confused and the club had told him not to lead falls on deaf ears)
There followed three years of legal cases, funded by friends, family and a second mortgage - many trips to France - and he ends up found guilty and in jail. Wrecked.
Realistic? Think SCGB needs to sort this out (please), and no I wouldn't rep and resort lead without this sorted. |
@pisteoff Yes I think it is a possible scenario, and I don't blame you for not wanting to rep under those circumstances.
@Pruman, your comments on the published accounts are very pertinent, quote "Turnover has gone from £4.7m (y/e April 2020) to £1.2m (y/e April 2021) and the operating LOSS is £332,666 - you may remember recently that the Chairman was telling us the ship had been steadied and the club was now showing a surplus of circa £300k - well it turns out that the surplus was only a surplus because the fair value of the Club's investments had increased by over £600k. Smoke & mirrors.
The club has also borrowed £700k against those investments and borrowed a further £100k bounce back loan.
21 staff on the payroll."
So in spite of the fact that FULL membership fees were paid for y/e April 2021 with much reduced (or non-existant) repping activity that season there was still an operating loss of over £300k! Seems to me that in spite of the claims that the ship had been steadied, in reality based on those figures it is still holed below the waterline, taking on water and settling lower......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@pisteoff, personally I think that the reps service is a dead duck (sadly, had great skiing with them in years gone by, but times change). However I don't follow the logic of the above case - which in a nutshell is that 4 members choose to leave the rep's party and do their own thing against the rep's advice, and a fatal accident ensues.
I guess law would vary by country - so even were I a legal expert (I'm not) I doubt if certain general advice should be given on it. But I would be very surprised if the rep had committed an offence in any Alpine state. Certainly there would be a police investigation. But if the rep had advised against the split, and the party departed anyway, I cannot see what else he could have done, nor how he could be responsible for the kit they were carrying on a route he had advised against.
I can see that reps do need clear legal guidance, though. And I do think that reps should be indemnified through Club insurance for legal rep activity whist they are fulfilling the Club's schedule. If the activity is clearly not legal, of course, they shouldn't be doing 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?
|
| Quote: |
If the activity is clearly not legal, of course, they shouldn't be doing it.
|
Yes - but things are typically not 'clearly not legal' - rather they have shades of grey. Or the law is not known / understood.
I am a little comforted by your argument above, however I would be very wary of getting caught up in that kind of investigation, and would fear others in the group choosing me as a scapegoat - they would need to protect themselves, and may have a legal claim to make themselves. In the scenario above (and indeed any similar scenario) the rep either knew one member did not have AV kit, or did not check. I am aware of at least one case where the first question asked was 'did they have AV kit' - had the answer been no the "deemed leader" would have been in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Again, does anyone care enough to actually read all the output?
|
I know of one person who cares and, for a smallish fee, could read all the output.
There is only one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| What on earth do 21 people on the payroll do ? Not the website , for sure. Certainly helps to give an operating loss of 330K. |
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| What on earth do 21 people on the payroll do ? Not the website , for sure. Certainly helps to give an operating loss of 330K. |
Interestingly this type of question was all but off the agenda when I sat on Council, I hope they've found a way to address these tough but important issues without defaulting to the 'protect HQ' at all costs trap. Some cuts have been made, but has it been enough? And are those left able to focus on what members want out of a club?
However more importantly I would ask whether SCGB has the vision and direction needed to create a thriving and relevant club for the C21? A healthy sign would be for Council members to engage here - I know they read this thread, because I am often criticised for contributing.
The debate here is open and helpful - much insight and healthy challenge - yet no one on Council contributes, even Gerry has obviously been quietly steered away. I just can't see SCGB turnaround unless it listens and engages with the world outside its once cosy Wimbledon HQ, accepts challenge and is brave enough to make some tough calls. Is SCGB a holiday company for wealthy 50+'s with a subscription model, or is it a club relevant for a growing and refreshed (ie younger) crowd?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
…brave enough to make some tough calls…
|
S/he is waiting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pisteoff, nice rhetorical question. Anyone can see what they are, What amazes me is the stickiness of those that aren't taking the hols or benefitting from the geezonaire subsidised guiding perks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Pruman,
| Quote: |
The Ski Club of Great Britain Ltd company accounts to 30 April 2021 are available. If you can get in they are in the Members' area of the website.
|
Is it just me ... but I can only see 2020 accounts ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You would think that a new company secretary would be keen to make a good impression, and ensure that everything was done right the first time. Apparently not...
Companies House:
As well as apparently having no idea of what their new address is, the records for the 11 current officers show 9 at the new address, but the Secretary and Chairman refusing to budge from Connect House:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04312167/officers (use the filter checkbox at the top to show only current officers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@ousekjarr, having to amend the official address four times in the course of two days does appear a bit shambolic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
| Membership is now "about 16,000" as at 30th April. Why "about"? Don't they know the number?... operating LOSS is £332,666 |
Without access to the accounts...
The pandemic is interesting because most of their customer base were unable to use their tour operator services, so their cost base ought to be
clearer than in ordinary times, perhaps.
If they have 16,000 members @ £70 a head they'd gross £1,100,000, dividing through gives £50k per employee.
That sounds too high. Looking at their website prices, customer #2 gets in for £30, so perhaps a better "price" to use would be £50, giving 800k and 25k per employee.
If they lost a nearly third of their members in the last 12 months then they are presumably gambling on stopping the decline in numbers.
Has anyone noticed the significant changes they've made to address that longstanding year-on-year problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the significant changes they've made to address that longstanding year-on-year problem? |
Closing ranks
Secrecy
Minimal effort to recruit at Ski Show ( data on new members joining there might be reassuring for members contenplating longer term viability)
Obfuscation of real financial performance
Quantum Reps
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Quantum Reps |
Very good, I had to think about that for a second or so. Perhaps "Schrödinger's Reps" would be even better. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Quantum Reps |
Very good, I had to think about that for a second or so. Perhaps "Schrödinger's Reps" would be even better. |
Soon the become Scarlet Pimpereps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Quantum Reps |
Very good, I had to think about that for a second or so. Perhaps "Schrödinger's Reps" would be even better. |
Long been fascinated by what I see as the misuse of 'quantum' in the term quantum leap. As Wikipedia points out, in physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. As an example a photon is the smallest quantity of light. So a quantum leap does not seem a big deal. In the case of the reps, maybe that is what DotM was getting at, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@rjs, especially in the case of light, in particular, wave/particle duality fascinates me. As a student I solved the problem by simply accepting it. And though much of my engineering training did come to be useful in real working life, I was never concerned about light having sometimes a particle properties sometimes a wave ones. But for some weird reason, looking up at a star I think of photons as having come millions of miles and hitting me at the speed of light yet with no kinetic energy. It blows my mind.
We may be OT
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rjs wrote: |
| @achilles, I suspect that DotM is thinking more of Wave-particle duality than really small reps. |
As in you don't know where they are until you see them? Existing in multiple places at once - so both a leader and not a leader at the same time?
So when the 'fuzz' (as in story above) interview them they become one or the other?
Trouble is as soon as you observe them they must be one or the other ... and the answer if they are/were in a group skiing together (unless with a pro) is that they must be a leader - as in they have a duty of care for the group. They just can't ignore their training - a catch 22. In accountability terms better not to know what you are doing, than to know and not do it.
Perhaps over thinking the rather interesting metaphor ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| achilles wrote: |
@rjs, yet with no kinetic energy. It blows my mind.
) |
No it wouldn't
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 3-11-21 13:00; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@pisteoff, why not, it’s been fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| ...Long been fascinated by what I see as the misuse of 'quantum' in the term quantum leap. ... |
The important point of the analogy is obviously the quantisation, not the absolute scale of any "leap" which isn't specified. I'm no pedant, but I think you'll find that the etymology of "quantum" pre-dates quantum mechanics for fairly obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or possibly as in quantum computing.
Q: "Are you a leader ?"
A: "Yes, no or maybe..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@musher, fair one. Fits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
