From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Sun Jun 13 21:05:46 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13398 for britdisc-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:04:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13382 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:04:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail-gw1.webleicester.net (mailgate.webleicester.co.uk [195.146.160.12]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21951 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:04:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from pii266 (pool-pri2-060.webleicester.co.uk [195.146.164.60]) by mail-gw1.webleicester.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA21474 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:00:53 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <01a401beb5d8$312f4f20$3ca492c3@pii266> From: "Ben Ravilious" <bravil@webleicester.co.uk> To: "BRITDISC" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Association Budget Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:03:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Wayne, (cc Britdisc) 1. Treasury records: Have to refer you to Stebbo on this on. But, I think its fair to say that a considerably higher amount of money will be needed with an association and will be spent on costs that, in may cases (e.g. postage to individual members), have not been incurred in the past. The majority of previous BUF budgets (previously around £3000 annually) has been spent on Ultimatum so I think we would now need to look at putting aside a similar amount just for the other admin work. (Disclaimer: "Yes folks its vague - but at this stage we just to need to know that its viable"). Another task we have before us is to produce a job description for the administrator. Once this is done we will have a better idea of the admin costs (including the administrator's salary). 2. "didn't the BUF have a part-time/volunteer administrator for a time?" Volunteer - Yes, she (Jo Bates) quit due partly for personal reasons (including motherhood) and also - as far as I am aware - due to feeling perhaps that she was not being supported properly by the committee. You would have to ask members of the previous administration for the full details. Without wanting to open old wounds, I think the main lesson to be learnt here is to pay the administrator! 3. "I'm assuming that the association would be really looking for someone who will spend X regular planned hours per week administering " Correct. This is certainly a part-time position for the time being. Chris Hughes and I reckoned we would be looking at around 10 hours per week based on the work we already do (or *should* be doing!) plus the inevitable periodic extra work brought on by membership administration. A lot of things can be computerised (e.g. online updates of members' contact details and regular automatic mail-merging) - something which I would be willing and able to setup (assuming I am re-elected!) Does this sound reasonable/credible/acceptable to people? If it doesn't, then lets have *constructive* reasoning behind criticisms (please!) Ben PS - Wayne/Sean thanks for the demographics stuff - I think we may need to do something like this again - perhaps as part of the next subs form? -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Retter <postmaster@phidelta.demon.co.uk> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Date: 13 June 1999 17:12 Subject: Re: Association Budget Ben Ravilious <bravil@webleicester.co.uk> writes >We have to add the costs of a part-time admin plus other admin costs >(£7000?). I am praying that the taxman isn't going to demand a cut of the >salary. Don't the BUF treasury records hold more accurate details of the admin costs? Reimbursements for phone calls, photocopying, postage, etc, cost of development programs, etc... Are you're "back of a fag packet" figures based on these, suitably projected/adjusted/rounded? Very vague memories, but - didn't the BUF have a part-time/volunteer administrator for a time? What's the story here? Since the post doesn't _seem_ to exist any more, I assume that there were reasons for the trial to terminate... what were those reasons, and what were the lessons learned? Will a _part-time_ administrator cover the job sufficiently? This will obviously depend upon the responsibilities of the post - are there yet any propositions as to what they would be (or, for that matter, currently ARE) I'm assuming that the association would be really looking for someone who will spend X regular planned hours per week administering the BUA (is/was this the proposed name? I'm assuming that this is still open to negotiation too, though someone got to BUPA before us...) rather than trying to squeeze them in around their other job(s)? Or not? dependent upon responsibilities, the time demand could fluctuate. >From the current setup, there just aren't enough hours in the day for our volunteer committees to do a normal days work, AND do their BUF stuff. Obviously this is a scenario to be fixed/avoided. If there aren't more volunteers, the obvious option is a salaried administrator. Anyone got any input on the way other countries do things? Various Swedish CLUBS have employed administrators, the UPA has salaried staff. I'm not suggesting that these organisations should be idols, but aspects should be used for role modelling. >For more accurate numbers I think we should look at Tour/Indoor Nationals >attendance, thus:- > >40 Tour teams x 11 players (average) = 440 players Can we not be more accurate in our estimations? Most Tour teams are ROSTERED, and have handed in their rosters. The unrostered teams could be persuaded to jot down some kind of team list (so far, the core of such teams hasn't changed dramatically, has it?) There's nearly a census here... (How do we guarantee that a proper census gets to everybody? I guess that all those that care and can be bothered will find out, but...) OK, some clubs have rostered their 'infrequent appearances' as well as their 'core players', but one could assume (damn, the inaccuracy strikes back!) that these 'infrequents' would subscribe to the association in order to be kept up to date - e.g. I don't remember seeing many Lurkers at Tour Events this year, yet, but they're planning to host their own tournament... Wayne Retter PS: In June 1993 Sean Young conducted a survey at the Samurai (now Headrush) Fiesta, and produced some demographic figures about UK Ultimate, based upon the results. His data sample wasn't huge (just the players, of the 16 teams at the event, that could be bothered to complete and return the survey.) and therefore those figures may be _slightly_ biased, for various reasons, but they're interesting enough to make it worthwhile re-running the survey. Anyone have any good ideas on: a) how to get the survey to everyone (if we could do this, we could conduct a census!); b) provide the incentives for: (i) people to complete the survey; (ii) the answers to be serious; (iii) the answers to be returned! ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Retter at home: 0181-663-4856 wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk mobile: 07970-903420 at work: 01737-273611 wayne_retter@watsonwyatt.co.uk