DT68, I'm reluctant to get into debate with a cloakroom ticket. Please give my regards to DT69 (adjacent hanger)
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in the SCGB but, bizarrely, this thread has held my interest (periodically, at least) for a while now. Please carry on, CG - don't be put off by those who lack the wit to recognise the value of your investigative work.
Red Leon Perhaps you share CG's predisposition to beancounting, if not his relentless negativity?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
SCGB DIRECTORS
By coincidence, Companies House has updated its records in the past 24 hours - with three directors added - so this appears to be the current board of Ski Club of Great Britain Limited [I was thinking of headlining this 'Breaking News' but decided that was a bit melodramatic]:
Rob Crowder, Steven Brabbs, Gerry Aitken, Richard Bird, Chris Glynne, Alan Lyons, Malcolm Bentley, Patrick Usborne, Paul Whitehead, Patrick Usborne, Malcolm Bentley and Mark Borland. [Edit: error, two names appear twice]
So that's 12 men, plus the male CEO, and no women. Mark Borland was not elected at the last AGM (according to the minutes) but scored the third highest number of votes of the five - all male - candidates. He appears to have been added to the board (and presumably council) since the meeting. Gender-wise, this is real back-to-the-future stuff ...
Quote:
Back in 1903, when ski lifts and safety bindings were unknown, 12 men sat down to dinner at a fashionable restaurant in London (Cafe Royal) and decided to form a ski club
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 15-03-13 16:36; edited 3 times in total
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?
DT68 wrote:
... relentless negativity ...
Point taken. I can see how vigorous criticism could be seen that way, but we're dealing with a fortress ... and remember the simple truth that SCGB membership accounts for 2.5% of British skiers, against 25% in 1960 (officially described at the time as an "under-achievement").
Here's something positive: today's SCGB Snowcast report on the new wounded soldiers' charity Skiing With Heroes ...
Comedy Goldsmith, unless two have identical names, I make it 11. And how do you know none of them are female?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
You're right. 12 men including the CEO. And that's probably wrong - this bit of research hasn't been as straightforward as I expected. Anyway, I hope they're not too angry with me ...
NB. Apologies - in fact, two names appear twice. The SCGB board appears to be 11 men, who would therefore not be angry.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Comedy Goldsmith, wrote
Quote:
but we're dealing with a fortress
Maybe, but why does that interest you? Could you please give us your manifesto? You have this, seemingly, relentless mission to point out 'something' (I'm not convinced yet what this 'something' is) about the SCGB. Could you please put down simply what you are hoping to achieve with everything that you write about them.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Megamum wrote:
Could you please give us your manifesto?
Sorry, I only have one copy, but this one is 99p on eBay.
Joking aside, I think the natural unfolding of information will have a natural outcome. It'll be interesting to see if the Club activates member-to-member messaging, as this was promised as already available a month ago. It's an integral element of web forums, as we know, and was featured here 9 years ago.
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.
CG thanks for acknowleding the bit about relentless negativity. It does get wearing ...
Like Megamum I am struggling to work out what your point is (no doubt because I am too witless ). I am obviously one of those people who starts a book on the last page. Let's see if we can work through this example:
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
You're right. 12 men including the CEO.
So what (as in "What are you trying to say")? Are you saying that they should all be men? Or that some of them are not men, despite their names? Or that the fact that they are all (allegedly) men signifies something - if so, what?
Or are you simply trying to emulate Christopher Columbus?*
*Explanation available if required ...
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I can't believe you're asking these questions. The skiing population is split pretty much 50/50 male/female, so obviously you can't have a national skiers' organisation run exclusively by men. Unless men feel they're best placed to make decisions for women.
I recall at least 3 women on the Council of the SCGB when I worked on it 20+ years ago. The two most recent CEOs have actually been women, and there was a female chairman and president a while back (Sally Cartwright, the publishing director of Hello! magazine).
In 2005, 5 out of 12 SCGB council members were women.
------------
P.S. [edit]: can anyone throw any light on why Harriet Bradley, elected to SCGB council in 2010 and therefore due to serve until 2014, resigned a year after joining the board?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Comedy Goldsmith, have you had all the current directors sexed? I once met a very nice girl called Peter.
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.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
I can't believe you're asking these questions. The skiing population is split pretty much 50/50 male/female, so obviously you can't have a national skiers' organisation run exclusively by men. Unless men feel they're best placed to make decisions for women.
But if no women stand, or none is voted onto Council by the membership (who presumably are both male and female), you could easily end up with an entirely male Council and vice versa. So what is the point you are making? Please don't demean yourself by trying to hide behind insinuation or innuendo - spell it out like a man (or should that be "person"?). Or are you one of those people who is quick to wound but afraid to strike?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
DT68 wrote:
So what is the point you are making?
The point I am making, my dear cloakroom ticket (are you male or female?), is that women are not solely responsible for creating a more positive and equal society ... in any domain, be it ski clubs or the police force.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Comedy Goldsmith, as Richard_Sideways predicted I might, I obviously touched a raw nerve when I published the photo of you in the most avant-garde ski-kit you have, on the occasion of your last outing on skis.
.
I apologise: I should not have breached your right to privacy.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
are you male or female?
An irrelevant and patently sexist question.
Turning to the substance of the matter, you obviously decided to demean yourself rather than give a straight answer to a straight question. So I will try and make it even easier. Are you suggesting (as appears - to use a technical term used by m'learned friends - to be the "innuendo" in your previous series of comments) that the current Council is incapable of creating, and/or is failing to create, a more positive and equal Ski Club?
If that is your suggestion, what - if any basis - do you have for making it (other than what would be a sexist assumption that people who happen to be male cannot create a more positive and equal Ski Club)?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
DT68, I think it's reasonable to ask ... before we go any further ... whether you are male or female? (most cloakroom tickets are gender-neutral, so that answer is also acceptable).
I'm just observing that the SCGB seems to be re-discovering its Edwardian roots: male-only, in the policy-making and rule-making dept. In my view, this is unhealthy for a membership organisation which seeks to expand and represent its members interests positively and impartially. Men can't invent a female perspective or necessarily imagine what women want.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
DT68, I think it's reasonable to ask ... before we go any further ... whether you are male or female? (most cloakroom tickets are gender-neutral, so that answer is also acceptable).
Only a sexist would think that a reasonable question to ask.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
Men can't invent a female perspective or necessarily imagine what women want.
Now you are pandering to feminist stereotypes or else assuming that all men suffer from your own shortcomings .
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
DT68, you've really blown it now. I'm going to have to invite you to the Royal Festival Hall (where we have a substantial cloakroom) and engage in debate at the 2014 WOW (Women of the World) Festival. Last weekend's WOW attracted huge audiences (not only women by any means) of people who wanted to celebrate the role of women in society and create a better future. You can call it feminism if you wish, or lob around silly phrases like "pandering to feminist stereotypes" but you're merely revealing yourself as 'yesterday's man' (disguised as cloakroom ticket).
In terms of the SCGB (or any other male-dominated club) ... we know the score. The council refreshes itself (or the opposite) largely by nomination: existing members maintaining the 'status quo' or - in this case - re-establishing male-domination.
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?
In the current financial climate, particularly if people skip skiing for a winter to save money, the price of membership becomes an issue. Retention of existing members, and a package that gets existing members to recommend membership - without expensive incentives - is vital. The cost of a new member, via marketing/promotion activity, can be very high.
So how does the SCGB membership price compare? These prices are for individuals, paying by direct debit. snowHeads is, of course, free and financed in its own ways (including private donations). There are member-owned and commercially owned clubs - all are part of the mix - the Golfers Club, below, is something relatively new:
Those are just a scattering of examples, Googled up. Examples of others welcome. Insurance-based ones like the Golfers Club might be interesting to look at, since it's such an important element of the ski 'package', in terms of taking holidays abroad.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
And the SCGB (Schnauzer Club of Great Britain... est. 1929) is just £7. I don't have a schnauzer but it seems to be the best value so I will join that.
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.
feef, don't be so naughty. Clearly there's an epic conspiracy against the SCGB membership afoot and CG is the person to expose it, with the rapier-like skill of Grisham at his best.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sun 17-03-13 22:14; edited 1 time in total
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Clouseau. I think you mean.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Has anyone found a national sports/leisure organisation which is more expensive to join than the SCGB? [your assistance would be valued in this essential research exercise - the internet is not purely a place to exchange gossip and discussions about baggage charges on low-cost airlines]
Obviously, there is a motive from a personal standpoint. If SCGB membership could be frozen (sic) at £60, this could help me put aside a little for Christmas. Perhaps the Club could exercise a few economies in certain departments ... you never know!
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:
Perhaps the Club could exercise a few economies in certain departments
Do you mean New Media As I would guess Ski Leaders are going to be a huge growth area next season and thus will need more investment.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
boredsurfin wrote:
As I would guess Ski Leaders are going to be a huge growth area next season and thus will need more investment.
I am suprised that the SCGB hasn't started a membership drive in the past few weeks highlighting the 'leading' service.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
stewart woodward, This is The Club we are talking about, around halfway through next season the sixpence might drop as to why every leading group is full
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Meanwhile ... SCGB President and BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner ... dramatic photo posted on Konrad Bartelski's FB page this morning:
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Mon 18-03-13 10:12; edited 1 time in total
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
stewart woodward, well the opening main banner on their website has changed to being all about leading but, you are right, they should be making more noise about it - maybe they are happy where they are.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
boredsurfin wrote:
I would guess Ski Leaders are going to be a huge growth area next season and thus will need more investment.
I absolutely agree. No doubt the penny has dropped with our beloved Nostradamus which is why he/she/it (CG) is so keen to identify economies elsewhere.
I also have little doubt that CG's latest research project is to enable him/her/it to demonstrate what great value for money the SCGB provides in comparison with, say, the Coleraine Carp Fishing Club. What would the SCGB do without such committed and loyal supporters/visionaries?
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?
boredsurfin, the resorts tell the club how many reps they can field, so no way to add more to take up any extra demand.
Comedy Goldsmith, well done for editing the picture so that it no longer scr*ws up the formatting of this page.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 18-03-13 13:07; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
DT68, yes I've just read that, but it doesn't give the exact code required. I'll be happy to re-size the photo if someone can give me a code to cut 'n paste into the edit. Thanks.
PJSki, perhaps no way to increase the reps in a resort but you could perhaps add more resorts - providing they are willing to provide the accomm, lift passes and whatever else they do as part of the deal...?
Comedy Goldsmith, come on - you've been around long enough to know how to fix oversized photos. Or should we put a bit in the Tamsins for that ??
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Dubaian, just give me the bloody code.
As for increasing the number of reps/leaders - forget it.
The service is costing ludicrous amounts of money (c. £250,000 per annum) for the benefit of 10%-15% of members.
Why should I - and 85% of SCGB members - pay for an expansion of a service we don't use?
Yours sincerely, Scrooge of Tunbridge Wells
After all it is free
After all it is free
I don't ski with the leaders every year but I'm happy to pay the £6.00 cost. Goldsmith, just leave if you don't like it.
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.
CG, good editing skills now acquired and deployed - well done.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 18-03-13 13:08; edited 1 time in total
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
PJSki, I'm absolutely not going to leave the SCGB. A very distinguished member of a famous British skiing family - leading light of the SCGB - told me 25 years ago that I was a "a Jew" and "You'll never change the Club."
Since I'm not trying to change the Club but merely remind it of its founding and enduring principles ... his point was silly.
If I was a Jew (which I happen not to be) I'd probably have been very upset by his anti-Semitism.
Anyway, you - Gerry? - can take it that that man's warning/threat was best ignored ... and taken as a challenge.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Mon 18-03-13 10:44; edited 1 time in total
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
). I am obviously one of those people who starts a book on the last page. Let's see if we can work through this example:
.
.
