 Poster: A snowHead
|
Slightly surprised to have just received an email from SCGB telling me Trevor Campbell Davis's
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SINCE 2017
REPORT TO MEMBERS OF THE CLUB
is now available to read, for members only, in my Ski Locker.
Not sure I can be bothered to read it though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The surprise was mainly due to me not having been a member for years!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Better log in and leak it here - let the SCGB pay the price for their GDPR breaches by the cruel gaze of public scrutiny - after all if you're not a member and it was unsolicited you have no obligation to them...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Better log in and leak it here - let the SCGB pay the price for their GDPR breaches by the cruel gaze of public scrutiny - after all if you're not a member and it was unsolicited you have no obligation to them... |
Downloaded a copy to read later. But I don't know enough about the situation to share something they at least intended to be private.
I'd obviously never make it as a proper investigative journalist like DG...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@kerb, very principled - so much for having a members only paywall though 
Maybe this explains how they keep member numbers so high, they keep zombie members around indefinitely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Oh Lordy save us from the manifesto of what DG would do if he ran snowheads....
For what it's worth I don't see anything wrong with those activities as a member service and provided they are objectively a benefit to members that stand on their own two feet (i.e. without dipping into member subs but also priced at a competitive level to the lay market). The fairly obvious problem is if that they are such that the "club" effectively becomes a TO with a £70 surcharge to get the brochure, or an insurance intermediary layering on £70 premium on top of the actual cost of insurance. |
It's only a ski club organsing trips for its paying members. You don't need to be a member to take the insurance but members get it cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a skim through the report. I'd say it strikes me as reasonably balanced and thoughtful (and, in a professional context, I've seen a few of these) and treads a fair path between "what happened" and "moving on".
There is a reasonable (IMO) explanation of why the report is delayed (mainly around financial year end and getting proper numbers together, rather than excessive lawyering).
It's not an exhaustive dive into the minutiae of who authorised what on the website, who paid what, and what the product was, but neither does it gloss over the fact that there have been a lot of screwups.
There is a clear acknowledgement of a need for greater relevant professional skills on the council, and a request for help on that front.
If you really care about the contents but aren't a member, maybe add the opportunity to read the report to that list of reasons to join 
If not, I'm sure @Gerry will have a succinct turn of phrase for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@snowdave, I'm not really that interested other than in a rubbernecking/ possible future potential membership if they a) can show they have adapted to the 21st century b) have their house in order and c) have something reasonably compelling to offer me as I age into their core demographic . I'm content if resonably pragmatic members like you are satisfied with it. Just knew it would make "keepers of the secret flame" annoyed and therefore was worth a little prodding.
Proof of whether it is worth the pixels it is written on would be if the club can actually change along the lines of a) b) & c).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Well
I have read the report and thought it was a fair effort at setting a way forward out of the mess they were in
Tempted to want a witch-hunt to pin the blame on someone for the lost money never mind opportunities but managed to resist that urge!
I wish them well and hope the club can rebuild now
One thing though why is Tom Jarman not back on council now the dust has settled to some degree?
Or is this another can of worms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@snowornever, too many members of Council who just refuse to work with Tom again, me included. As an example, some months back we all agreed a sensitive communication we wanted to put out. We agreed the wording, timing and method of putting it out. Of course Tom then decided that the timing and method weren't to his liking, so without consultation he just put it out where he liked, when he liked. That's just one example and I make no apologies for refusing to work with him ever again.
The sad part is he has loads to offer but his attitude appalling more than 50% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
@snowornever, too many members of Council who just refuse to work with Tom again, me included. As an example, some months back we all agreed a sensitive communication we wanted to put out. We agreed the wording, timing and method of putting it out. Of course Tom then decided that the timing and method weren't to his liking, so without consultation he just put it out where he liked, when he liked. That's just one example and I make no apologies for refusing to work with him ever again.
The sad part is he has loads to offer but his attitude appalling more than 50% of the time. |
Well, well, I am surprised at this, I had assumed from his many posts on scgb facebook place he was actively involved in the need and process of change!
thats confusing the message a bit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Its about time,
As a long term member of some 35 though intermittent years, I find it appaling that Tom Jarman was thrown off the Council for voicing the justifiable frustrations of many, perhaps he was a bit too strident in his views understandbly. I would be too with a group of people whose speed of decision making on matters of what in any other business seemed would be regarded as straightfoward to move at the speed to move at the speed of a geriatric sloth.
Speaking to lots of people, the standard of executive management in all walks of life Politics, Police, Business, Banking, and the SCGB are no exception.
We must be the only country that rewards mediocraty and failure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Forst wrote: |
Its about time,
As a long term member of some 35 though intermittent years, I find it appaling that Tom Jarman was thrown off the Council for voicing the justifiable frustrations of many, perhaps he was a bit too strident in his views understandbly. |
That's not what happened, it's just Tom's narrative. We dealt with the past, got rid of the people who caused the problem then agreed on a way back to break even. Tom must have got bored of the lack of drama though because he then decided to start some of his own. Tom has a massive ego that can only be satisfied by picking fights with people and winning.
Obviously you now have two opposing views and you will have to decide which one is the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
The report. Too long at 9 pages to post here and I wouldn’t want to be the one to do that anyway. Most aspects won’t be news to anyone who has followed this thread. One Member describes it as “Disappointingly sanitised" and I cannot argue with that.
My takeaways in brief:
- 2019/20 will post a £1.2m loss (£2m loss over two years then!)
- The Management missed the break clause in Oct 2019 when they could have got out of that unnecessarily expensive building.
- It would appear that the Chairman has brought things back under strict control and aiming for a break even 2020/21. I await to be impressed on that one.
In many ways the Board Minutes, also published albeit redacted here and there, are more enlightening. I can see why the insurance is late, for example, if the “go / no go” decision was left as late as the end of July.
| Yoda wrote: |
| I received an email yesterday from TIF |
So it begins. The club has allowed a competitor to eat it’s lunch. In a season when the insurance sales are quite likely to be lower and it was vital to have all the ducks lined up, they’ve stuffed it up.
| philwig wrote: |
| I assume the insurance revenue is simply commission gained from farming the existing membership. |
£151k in insurance commission would equate to somewhere between £1m and £1.5m in sales at a guess and you wouldn’t achieve that from club members alone. I’ve always understood that a lot of non-members buy it by finding it on a web search – and some of those will have received a ‘TIF email’ too! Such a wasted opportunity.
| Gerry wrote: |
| What’s wrong with a ski club organising holidays for its members? If you were running snowHeads would you cancel the Bashes? |
What’s wrong?!?! The purchase of Mountain Tracks looks to have been totally written off! And Freshtracks LOST £200k last year and for this year the prices have been sky rocketed to try and make it work – which it won’t by the way. No wonder when the massive overheads have to be taken into account – not a problem the snowheads executive floor has to worry about AFAIUI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I have read the Chairman's report. It seems to be excellent and certainly shines more light on how the club has been run than I have ever seen in many years as a member. Some very poor decisions have been made, resulting in huge financial losses. As I see it, the key unsolved problem identified is that of securing a Council (Board of Directors) that collectively has all the necessary skills, experience and time to perform its crucial function. I was pleased to see that at last members will be informed of Council decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Pruman, I asked ‘what’s wrong with a ski club oganising holidays for its members’. Obviously it must not be done at a loss. Freshtracks had always covered its costs in the past. Management and oversight failures were the issue not the underlying principle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Jehu, skills gaps can be reduced to a degree through committees.
Pruman.
‘Massive cost hike. Won’t work’
Week in Flaine chalet £1265, including off piste instruction (course only £600) and fixed transfers from GVA . Are you sure you understand the true monetary value of things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 so current and multi repeat Council member approaches the new era of openness and strict fiscal discipline and keen commerciality for the benefit of members by a) excusing an insurance product which is off the market because no one managed to the timetable and b) the price of holidays which have been moving up as no big deal....
Not the hallmarks of an organisation with change/ improvement in its heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
To be fair the holiday prices don’t look too bad, considering someone else is doing the work for you and putting the group together. Similar price to outfits like Ski lodge for La Grave
1400 euros vs £1445. A bit more expensive but consider transfer included and the accommodation is a bit better. And you get to ski with some duffer Brits who’ll make you feel better rather than some tyro Scandis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| ski with some duffer Brits who’ll make you feel better rather than some tyro Scandis. |
beginning to think this may be the way forward 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
- The Management missed the break clause in Oct 2019 when they could have got out of that unnecessarily expensive building.
|
I gather that the annual rental cost of the current premises is £220,000 and having not exercised the break clause option the remaining lease runs until 2025? That's going to be a financial millstone around the SCGB's neck that they could well do without!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
- The Management missed the break clause in Oct 2019 when they could have got out of that unnecessarily expensive building.
|
I gather that the annual rental cost of the current premises is £220,000 and having not exercised the break clause option the remaining lease runs until 2025? That's going to be a financial millstone around the SCGB's neck that they could well do without! |
Until they can find a tenant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowornever wrote: |
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
- The Management missed the break clause in Oct 2019 when they could have got out of that unnecessarily expensive building.
|
I gather that the annual rental cost of the current premises is £220,000 and having not exercised the break clause option the remaining lease runs until 2025? That's going to be a financial millstone around the SCGB's neck that they could well do without! |
Until they can find a tenant |
That's going to be extremely difficult with working from home becoming the norm, and many companies downsizing their office space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@eblunt, companies downsizing their office space need somewhere to go - it is the large sites which will lose value, and perversely the smaller offices may increase in value as there is more competition for them now.
But 220K is a lot, and they may just have to sublet at a lower rent to minimise their losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| snowornever wrote: |
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
- The Management missed the break clause in Oct 2019 when they could have got out of that unnecessarily expensive building.
|
I gather that the annual rental cost of the current premises is £220,000 and having not exercised the break clause option the remaining lease runs until 2025? That's going to be a financial millstone around the SCGB's neck that they could well do without! |
Until they can find a tenant |
Not too many people looking for new office space at the moment. Yes, thats with 2020 hindsight but if they didn't need it then they should have done something. When I was in charge of contracts and leases (offices, vehicles, machinery) I was always cognisant of breaks/termination dates and reviewing to see if a better deal could be had by exercising it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
But it's ok the office lease all falls into the bucket of blame the last guy, not the council who were supervising him/exercising proper scrutiny on behalf of the members.
You see how this works and why accordingly death spiral is still a more likely outcome than phoenix from the flames
"We just have to accept mistakes of the past and move on"
"There's this financial hole that needs filling"
"Well we can't grow membership so we'd better put up subs"
...membership continues to fall...
"We'd better put up subs more or put additional "tax" on stuff like holidays or insurance."
It's an object lesson in being either a genuine club or a hardnosed competent commercial organisation - fall between those stools and everyone better be damn good at their voluntary roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a close relative who is a keen skier and a qualified accountant. Just the sort of person needed to be a Council member. How could I persuade her to volunteer to help the Ski Club? She has never been a member.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Jehu wrote: |
| I have a close relative who is a keen skier and a qualified accountant. Just the sort of person needed to be a Council member. How could I persuade her to volunteer to help the Ski Club? She has never been a member. |
Point her to the contributions of the thoroughly charming council member who has acquitted himself with style, wit and grace over the years on these pages and ask how could she pass up the opportunity to work for free with such a darling man? (May need to turn a blind eye to the blatant trolling, reactionary rightwing rhetoric, self interest, abuse and whiff of things less pleasant re white anglo-saxons and furriners taking our jobs though)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| But it's ok the office lease all falls into the bucket of blame the last guy, not the council who were supervising him/exercising proper scrutiny on behalf of the members. |
CEO Holt and Chairman Bentley at fault there. Both gone now. What would you have done, sacked everyone including the cleaners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| snowornever wrote: |
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Pruman wrote: |
- The Management missed the break clause in Oct 2019 when they could have got out of that unnecessarily expensive building.
|
I gather that the annual rental cost of the current premises is £220,000 and having not exercised the break clause option the remaining lease runs until 2025? That's going to be a financial millstone around the SCGB's neck that they could well do without! |
Until they can find a tenant |
Such a shame, I don't believe snowHeads are currently looking for office space, that would be a match made in Heaven, think of the mutual benefits/synergies..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
No but I'd be interested if the others on deck at the time acknowledge their culpability in the affair and demonstrate that they have learnt from it and that similar errors on a "good chap", "old boys" basis can't be made in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| No but I'd be interested if the others on deck at the time acknowledge their culpability in the affair and demonstrate that they have learnt from it and that similar errors on a "good chap", "old boys" basis can't be made in future. |
I can understand an interest in other aspects of the Club, and run committees dealing with those aspects, might not have a full understanding of the lease agreement. The CEO and the Chair should have caught this.
There’s no old boy’s/good chap culture here since the two already mentioned were eased out. If you went back 15 years you wouldn’t find it either.
snowHeads has much more of a problem with cliques and favouritism than the Ski Club ever did.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 3-09-20 11:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Jehu wrote: |
| I have a close relative who is a keen skier and a qualified accountant. Just the sort of person needed to be a Council member. How could I persuade her to volunteer to help the Ski Club? She has never been a member. |
Point her to the contributions of the thoroughly charming council member who has acquitted himself with style, wit and grace over the years on these pages and ask how could she pass up the opportunity to work for free with such a darling man? (May need to turn a blind eye to the blatant trolling, reactionary rightwing rhetoric, self interest, abuse and whiff of things less pleasant re white anglo-saxons and furriners taking our jobs though) |
Or she might like to share a room with your friend masque.
I don’t like you because you lie and put words in people’s mouths.
You don’t like me, fine but others don’t have an issue with me: https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=4606596&highlight=gerry#4606596
snowHeads is one of the nastiest forums I’ve ever seen. I didn’t set the tone but if you want to be nasty to me then might respond in kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I didn’t set the tone
|
You see how trolls n socks work. And then...always the victim. A familiar pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| ... snowHeads is one of the nastiest forums I’ve ever seen. I didn’t set the tone but if you want to be nasty to me then might respond in kind. |
Do you think that your approach has been an effective way to deal with these perceived sleights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapeau - one character reference in all these years. You're a bit of an enigma because none of your apparent charm and inclusiveness comes across in your online persona (and that of the other sock puppets you've trolled under over the years) and you seem to have always had it in for sHs from the start. Why? Does it represent all that the SCGB could have been if it wasn't so far up its own harris?
As I've said elsewhere in this thread I'm probably aging toward the demographic which is most strongly represented in the membership so I should be a target member but the single biggest deterrent would be the way you present yourslef as ambassador for the club. How do you square your publicly paraded views on wanting hardest possible Brexit with the knowledge that it makes access to skiing harder and costlier for all your members for instance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that argues against democracy on the basis that their skiing insurance might be a tad more expensive next season. But then, each to their own. We've had that argument on a bigger scale and the country made its choice.
It seems to me that the personal anti-Brexit views of Admin and various commercial Snowheads acolytes are paraded as though no other opinion is respectable. This sort of intolerance gives the lie to Snowheads being "the friendliest ski club ever."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Chapeau - one character reference in all these years. You're a bit of an enigma because none of your apparent charm and inclusiveness comes across in your online persona (and that of the other sock puppets you've trolled under over the years) and you seem to have always had it in for sHs from the start. Why? Does it represent all that the SCGB could have been if it wasn't so far up its own harris?
As I've said elsewhere in this thread I'm probably aging toward the demographic which is most strongly represented in the membership so I should be a target member but the single biggest deterrent would be the way you present yourslef as ambassador for the club. How do you square your publicly paraded views on wanting hardest possible Brexit with the knowledge that it makes access to skiing harder and costlier for all your members for instance? |
I want the best deal but no deal is better than a bad deal.
I like sH. It’s stuffed full of likable people, it’s just the small group within the whole it don’t like. That you’ve done is try to portray members of the ski club as a whole as snooty, upper class and noninvasive. I get that you need something to unite against but why pick on that group?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mitcva wrote: |
Personally, I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that argues against democracy on the basis that their skiing insurance might be a tad more expensive next season. But then, each to their own. We've had that argument on a bigger scale and the country made its choice.
It seems to me that the personal anti-Brexit views of Admin and various commercial Snowheads acolytes are paraded as though no other opinion is respectable. This sort of intolerance gives the lie to Snowheads being "the friendliest ski club ever." |
sH is a business. There’s no way to influence it other than being in the in crowd. sH should be reconstructed as a proper member owned club, with proper memorandum and article. No chance of that though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
