At the first of the three "AGB Membership Roadshows" last night, far and away the hottest discussion came around the suggestion that they would abolish the block membership fee for Junior, Disabled and University clubs. Instead, fees for these groups would be set at 25% of the adult fees (currently roughly ?10 each). The claim was that this would be revenue neutral - NOT a money-raising scheme - and would be more equitable (Why should some juniors pay nothing and others a full annual fee for the same service, for instance?). Some maintained it would not make much difference, and Archery was still a lot cheaper than Golf, Gymnastics, Hockey etc. Full adult members might wonder why they are expected to subsidise these groups if they are not affected by them. AGB also suggested that the block fees also masked the real number of archers in the three groups, as they suspect that clubs simply send in the same list of names year on year and don't give accurate returns
Others (myself included) tried to focus on the effect on recruitment. These block fees were introduced in the distant past to encourage recruitment from those three targeted groups, though whether this purpose had been considered still valid was airily dismissed. It was argued that removing the flexibilty they allow clubs would seriously affect the numbers who join. It is already dispiriting when, at the end of a Beginners' course, you go over the fees and you can see the disappointment at the initial cost, particularly for family groups. At my club we do not take any of the AGB fees from the juniors, but we could not continue to do this at ?10 a head. For a family with two children it adds up. And we are in times where a ?1 annual increase can be the difference between staying in the sport or not. It would be particularly hard on University clubs, which are all governed by different rules set by their institution's sporting bodies.
I did not feel the case for the change was well put, and it was obvious those advocating it had not understood the recruitment aspect at all, particularly in Universities. IMHO, it was a bit rich blaming clubs for inaccuracies in data on membership numbers.
However, it is likely that a proposal to abolish these block fees will be put to the AGM next April. Unless you get to one of the two remaining roadshows, I very much doubt whether there will be any further formal opportunity for discussion until then. So, let's get discussing!
Others (myself included) tried to focus on the effect on recruitment. These block fees were introduced in the distant past to encourage recruitment from those three targeted groups, though whether this purpose had been considered still valid was airily dismissed. It was argued that removing the flexibilty they allow clubs would seriously affect the numbers who join. It is already dispiriting when, at the end of a Beginners' course, you go over the fees and you can see the disappointment at the initial cost, particularly for family groups. At my club we do not take any of the AGB fees from the juniors, but we could not continue to do this at ?10 a head. For a family with two children it adds up. And we are in times where a ?1 annual increase can be the difference between staying in the sport or not. It would be particularly hard on University clubs, which are all governed by different rules set by their institution's sporting bodies.
I did not feel the case for the change was well put, and it was obvious those advocating it had not understood the recruitment aspect at all, particularly in Universities. IMHO, it was a bit rich blaming clubs for inaccuracies in data on membership numbers.
However, it is likely that a proposal to abolish these block fees will be put to the AGM next April. Unless you get to one of the two remaining roadshows, I very much doubt whether there will be any further formal opportunity for discussion until then. So, let's get discussing!