The Ski Club: a true non-profit club, or a conventional company?

A snowHead

I thought it might be an idea to start this thread, since it picks up from useful points made in the 'SCGB Snow Reports' thread, which has got a bit bogged down in name-calling. Let's get back to the grit of the debate within that thread:

Is the Club a true non-profit organisation, wholly committed to the interests of its members, or does profit distribution occur under the guise of the non-profit company by which the Club operates?

My concerns as a Club member are two-fold:

1 Annual accounts which give relatively little detail of income and expenditure breakdown. For example, the Club's website, which has been going for some years now, is not accounted for as an item (unlike, for instance, our Club's magazine). No information on the costs or revenues of the website have ever been disclosed to members. The cost of repping is not accounted for, in specific terms. Salaries and emoluments are not disclosed (main salaries on the British national ski bodies, such as Snowsport GB have traditionally been published). These are just a couple of examples.

2 One thing which has caused me a little concern over the past 15 years is the indication from senior officers of the Club that financial bonuses have been paid to members of management, and perhaps staff. It is not known on what basis these bonuses are paid, what they have amounted to, and whether they essentially comprise a profit distribution. I hasten to add that this is not an assertion of any wrongdoing whatsoever: there are, no doubt, perfectly good reasons why bonuses have been paid.

I am no expert on non-profit organisations, and therefore it would be useful to hear from any snowHead who has such knowledge. Are there conventions or codes of practice over the payment of bonuses by these bodies? What does 'non-profit' really mean?
---------------
It may concern SCGB members that I should be raising such questions as above, at all, on a public-access website. This is not comfortable for me either. Recently, on the Club's own site, raising reasonable questions has led to immediate problems and personal attacks on posters (fellow members of a club) which is highly inappropriate. Let's have a calm, mature discussion, with no name-calling - please!
Please bear in mind that we're discussing the SCGB. It began in 1903. I first joined it in 1962. It matters to people. Many snowHeads might like to join it. Thanks!

A snowHead

That's interesting! So it's possible that when there are excess funds at the end of any financial year, the directors may vote to give themselves bonuses?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Non-profit is also called not-for-profit but should probably be called non-profit-distributing, there being no distribution of profits. In sport, most of these clubs and associations are mutually trading, that is providing services for their own members, and are set up as companies limited by guarantee without shareholders. Such a company is run by a board of directors who are elected by the members so, ultimately, power rests with the members in theory.

In practise a long established club tends to follow the route which has been taken by the SCGB. The recent new Mem. and Art. of Association restricts the ability of the members to control the club and its executive. This would be considered a stabilising move by the executive but can be viewed as keeping control within the establishment. Often with such clubs and associations the senior executives and managers are paid fairly high saleries which is defended as a requirement to recruit high calibre people. The danger from the members point of view is that the association can finish up being run for the benefit of these executives and managers to maintain their high saleries. Charities can suffer from similar problems as can quangos.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

john wells, do you know what the wages bill is at the SCGB?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Tim Brown, no idea. From what I remember of the accounts, the total human resource cost is not stated as a single figure. The wage bill is spread around the various cost headings without being itemised. A common catch-all for clubs is to have an item called "member services" which can hide all sorts of things.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Tim Brown, correction - I have just checked and the SCGB accounts do state, in 2004, the total employment costs (wages, national insurance and pensions) was £667,819 for 34 employees.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

The 2004 statement of accounts is avaiable here. I can see no explicit figure for staff costs. I guess members have to make a decision on whether the services they receive merits what they pay, and thus whether they wish to carry on paying. I seem to remember similar discussion last year.
I think the club provides services to me that I cannot easily receive elsewhere, at the moment. However, in the future, the informal but effective networks building up in this forum - perhaps with links to other areas - may change the picture. The EOSB has been a really imaginative venture, I think. Wish I cold be there.
All that does not neccessarily mean that staff costs need to be revealed. But it does mean that the club and its representatives have to provide good services civilly for what it charges.

After all it is free

Nick Zotov, it is there but you have to wade through all the figures - see bottom of page 14, note 15.

john wells, can you point me at that? I've found pension costs, but not that figure. Mind you, I've had a long day Very Happy

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

john wells, OK got it. Thanks. Bit tired, better call it a day, soon. Interesting figure. Overall, though, the real question for most members is whether they feel they are getting value for money. There is also the question, for some, of whether they enjoy being a member of the club community. Individuals' wagesare unimportant to most, I feel.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Correcting myself again - of the 34 employees 9 are directors and it states that the directors receive no remuneration so the paid employees number 25.

Nick Zotov, I think that our postings are crossing each other and that I may have answered that question.

The wording of parts of the accounts is poor and misleading, for example, "movements in shareholders funds" which is the usual accountants jargon but there are no shareholders. That type of sloppyness does reduce confidence in the accuracy of the rest of the accounts.

snow reports

Surely, it would be better to use excess funds in a better way than paying bonuses to the chiefs.

I joined SCGB but only for one year. They could for instance have your first year membership at a cheaper rate - getting you hooked, but you would be able to see the benefits of being a member of the club before re-newing ?

Just an idea - many other organisations do this so it must work ?

You know it makes sense.

Tim, it wouldn't be correct to assert that the Club's directors (the members of Council) would vote to pay themselves bonuses. They're unpaid. The Chief Exec and other most senior executives are not directors, as I understand it. All directorships are registered at Companies House by the Club.

To clarify the above, my recollection (following rumour within the Club) was that the then Chairman Alan Chandler mentioned financial bonuses at an annual general meeting over 10 years ago. I don't recall that comment being minuted.

Much more recently a Club rep mentioned that bonuses were being paid within the holidays department, but that would require confirmation or denial.

Does it matter?

It seems to me that a conventional company - by definition a profit-driven enterprise - might have every reason to pay financial bonuses. The Ski Club - a non-profit organisation, purely driven to maximising member benefit - should clarify whether bonuses are currently paid and - if so - for what reason? If they are paid, are they paid on the basis of financial performance (for example), membership growth, or what?

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

David Goldsmith, staff bonuses in most orginizations are a sensitive matter. I think it reasonable that details are not disclosed. Value for money, service (including response to members' concerns) and whether one feels proud to be part of the club, are the important things. Not financial concerns. If the basics are not right, the most effective vote is to vote with one's feet. Or, rather, wallet.

A snowHead

Paul Mason, many organisations do that, requiring you to pay by direct debit to recieve the discount. Many people then forget about the direct debit and their membership just gets renewed automatically without them "deciding" to stay.

A snowHead

Paul Mason, There are 3 routes to new member discounts:
A club member can recomend you. If you subscribe, you get a £10 Thresher voucher, so does your nominator.
You can join through the club site, and of for direct debit renewal. You get a gift - not sure what that is.
If things carry on as in the past, you can join up with a rep in resort. I think this is a 2 years for the price of one deal.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

David Goldsmith , Why on earth are you discussing this here ?
The Ski Club exists. You are a member. Take it up through the appropriate channels - it has nothing to do with someone else's forum.
Would you start questioning the details of , say, the running of The Amateur Swimming Association with anyone but them?
I can only assume that you are one of the "old and odd" members that have led to discussion "over there" as you just seem to want to wind people up the whole time for no apparent reason - other than, presumably, having nothing better to do with your time.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Scrumpy, perhaps for the same reason that others bring it up here. Also, if the Ski Club of Great Britain is supposed to represent skiers in the United Kingdom, then skiers in the United Kingdom should be free to discuss it anywhere. If the Ski Club of Great Britain wants to actually do something for UK skiers such as myself, then it is going to have to prove that it has changed, and it is going to have to reach out to people in other forums. By keeping itself closed and insular, then I will never show interest in it. And should it choose to have a superior attitude and bully-boy tactics (which I have experienced in the past), then I can assure you that it DOES NOT, nor NEVER WILL represent true skiers in the United Kingdom, and it will continue to be a club for the boys, designed to boost the coffers and egos of certain people who are out of touch, and irrelevant to this sport which I love, and they profess to care about.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Scrumpy, I think David has already explained why in the small print below his introductory post to this topic. And I think some of the subsequent posts have vindicated him. We have discovered, for example, that a part of SCGB published accounts is incorrectly worded. Most of the above posters are SCGB Members (AFAIK) and they have been happy to contribute here.

This section of the snowheads forums, while often lying dormant for week after week, suffers occasional eruptions and caused more dissent and disruption than the rest of snowHeads put together. But it seems it may yet be a better place for reasoned argument and discussion of SCGB subjects than the MO area itself. Certainly it's open to all. If the SCGB had not abruptly closed down it's open forum, I would have been a member last year. I doubt now whether I will ever join as invited by the last sentence of DG's 'small print'.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Scrumpy, it's still (in the main) a free country. David Goldsmith can opine whatever he likes, wherever he likes. Where would we be if we couldn't moan to each other about the BBC, Network Rail, The Sun, etc, etc? If you don't like David's views, you're equally free to rebut them, or the SCGB could do so "officially", if it liked. I must say, David has expressed his views (as usual) in a commendably restrained tone.

After all it is free

Is the Club a true non-profit organisation
My concerns as a Club member are two-fold:

1 Annual accounts which give relatively little detail of income and expenditure breakdown.
One thing which has caused me a little concern over the past 15 years......

All quotes from the first posting.
All things to address to the Ski Club if he really wants an answer rather than to create unrest.
All indications that he is a wind up merchant.

The Ski Club is not the BBC - if you don't want to pay then don't . No one would miss people who are so much up their own back bottoms that they have nothing better to do than sit here carping about things that have nothing to do with them.
I think the fact that 4 of you have over 11,000 postings here proves that you must all have pretty meaningless lives anyway.

The Ski Club provides good discounts, brilliant holidays and resort guiding - all I need from it -

Perhaps you would like me to get hold of the local golf club's accounts so you could have a new topic of debate for a change?

I did not post "back bottoms" but a*ses - the software changes this ?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Scrumpy, 'fraid so!

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

Scrumpy, we live in a new era of open communication. Providing that this discussion is objective and the views are honestly expressed, I think it can be of great benefit to the Ski Club. It is compatible with the Club's mission and objectives, which imply less of a 'private affair', and a more inclusive organisation. To quote, once again, from the SCGB Mission Statement printed in 1995:

David Goldsmith, have you contacted the SCGB directly?

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Tim Brown, good point, actually. I've only once been in a rep's group with a boarder. I guess skiers and boarders have diffculties covering the same gorund - offpiste, at least - because of trouble traversing. Does anyone know of reps boarding with members?

A snowHead

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Whoa there, let's keep a tenuous grasp on reality.

The SCGB is a retailer and Tour Operator selling products and services to the great unwashed and for a fee it will sell additional products and services to those willing to pay to join.

By any measure, the goods and services to members and non-members alike are no better and in some cases worse than those available to any member of the public through other sources. With that we are all perfectly entitled to discuss them.

It's a little more difficult when discussing disposal or dispersal of income within the club. The members contribute, but so do many non-members. So as a public company it is reasonable to expect discussion, QED.

There are profit issues for the club members to address. It's inconceivable that the club (with a member subsidised infrastructure) is making losses in its commercial enterprises, unless there is gross mismanagement of those enterprises. The disposal of those profits should be of enormous interest to the members. The prurient interest of non-members in the same is less justifiable other than to assist in deciding to join and to judge if the club is suitably run for the benefit of ALL its members or a select controlling cabal of, let's say hypothetically, club reps?

Your membership does provide you with a ready-made social club of hopefully like minded people (though recent events may just cast a shadow on that ideal), but that seems to be pretty much it.

The figures we should all be interested in is the membership retention figures, year on year. And is there any real economic value in being a member.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Tim Brown, I'll respond to you by PM tomorrow on your second point and dig out some data to respond to your first point here tomorrow. Without putting fingers on the precise data tonight, it is the case that the British ski population has grown by well over 1 million since 1962, but the Club's net increase in membership over the four decades has been under 10,000 paying units.

But, no, I am certainly not saying that the SCGB should have expanded at the same rate as the "commercial sector" (whatever that may be). If you define the Club as 'outside the commercial sector', be aware that we are a member of the trade body Snowsports Industries of Great Britain.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Masque, I think that that's a little too "conspiracy theory". There may well be problems in the way that the ski club is managed, as there are in all organisations, but to suggest that it's run for purely for the benefit of a "controlling cabal" is taking it a bit far.

After all it is free

Kramer, I was writing, as stated, hypothetically and I did describe the interest as prurient. But it is demonstrable that humans who obtain power, gather around them people of a similar mind and once organised will behave with amorality to retain and control that power. It's a human condition that has always needed to be legislated to control. We also have to remember that man will always seek to find new ways to shape or break those rules.
Any discussion on malfeasance within the club would be for the members unless it were in the public interest to be exposed.
I hasten to add that I’ve NO knowledge that could be construed that way.

Nick Zotov, Any non-member who buys a product or service directly contributes to the club and has an interest as to how that's used. The club is marketing itself to non-members and other agencies and will gain a tripple benefit in members fees, market position and retail profits. THe members should be taking a very close interest in this.
It is a mildly grey area but not outside reasoned debate.

Masque, power corrupts and all that?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Hmm. Not sure I would use he term "cabal", but I am concerned that one interest group is so heavily represented at council. I'm not ani-rep. The rep system is the reason I joined the club. The qualities required by good reps are also good for council membership. But that doesn't mean that 7 out of 9 council members, I think, should be reps.
[edit] Typos corrected for kuwait_ian's peace of mind snowHead

[/edit]

Help!!

The Ski Club: a true non-profit club, or a conventional company?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Ski Club of Great Britain