BE stripped down, how minimal would you go?...

I don't completely understand how you could differentiate between pro and amateurs though other than by numbers of horses run. I have a friend who sorts out difficult horses and competes them for people but she works full-time and would certainly not call herself a pro rider. Yet she would probably ride 6-7 different horses over the course of a season yet she only owns one horse herself and would probably class herself as the one-horse owner type.

As regards OP, I do think BE could do with being run by a more 'free market capitalism' approach - namely, the mandate being to make it as affordable as possible for all. Refunds are a joke - I'm surprised noone has raised it with Trading Standards to be completely honest, particularly if you apply for a refund within the 'reasonable notice' period of 28 days.
 
But BE already have a split system with the option of tickets. It would just be another layer of that system with perhaps a level that gave you full membership and 12 runs and then one that allowed more.

What ever number of runs you create a cut off at it will upset someone!!!

How about you get a 6 month membership - for those that want to miss the first few and last few run it would be ace!!! not sure they will go with that though!
 
They already do half year membership from July.

Personally and this is a first I cannot be bothered to rant as BE does not listen and gets its knickers in a twist about other things. There is so many wonderful things they could which are very simple to make the sport better for grass roots but they do not do it. RC on the whole make changes that it seems members want for regional comps.
 
Ok, from the land of eventing for 5 euros (or 25 at the really expensive events ;-)):

I think the easiest way for events (not BE) to increase their profits would be to run a proper bar. It has always struck me as absolutely ludicrous that no BE event seems capable of having a large (I mean a good 50m long) marquee - doesn';t have to be top of the range, you put a bar in one side, have 5 - 10 people behind it, and sell water, coke, beer and wine. And sandwiches. This is how Belgian events are viable. They usually have the above tent by the show-jumping, with the results inside it, and a blow heater if necessary, and then a smaller version by the water jump on the xc. Nothing pissed me off more at BE than seeing a fancy version of the above at many events, empty for all but 2 hours of the day, used for sponsors. What is the point?!
 
As an organiser feeding the volunteers would rank way above a smart marquee or floral displays for example in my budget priorities !!
 
Personally I would like the option of reduced membership for no magazine just as a pdf or the online thing they had the other month, I'd like a set of schedules through the post still but that should also be optional. Having a tiered membership system makes complete sense to me but otherwise I agree with meardsall_millie I'm afraid.

I don't think they should change the actual events tbh as that is what makes it affiliated. More the admin, refunds side of the coin iykwim.
 
Interesting thread
smile.gif
I think they should scrap the magazine, it's got more and more lavish, used to just be schedules, then schedules plus a bit of extra info, now it's a full blown glossy. It's actually quite good, but we don't get to choose whether they spend our money on producing it or not - the more people go for green memberships the more expensive per reader the magazine looks! Needs to go, sorry BE Marketing Department
wink.gif


From my involvement with event organising, certainly for the grassroots events like ours, there honestly isn't much/any fat to cut. Yes, could cut down a bit on course costs but looking at this thread that wouldn't be universally popular. We've frequently got our Xmas trees for free and even when we pay it's not much. Flowers we "borrow" for free from local Garden Centre. Interesting input re the bar, and I'm certainly surprised how few events do have one. Also, the big Sponsors' marquee is a cost. TBH, most, not all, of our sponsors do it to put something back into the sport and many don't even bother to come, certainly not fussed about a lavish lunch. The lunches are largely taken up by the Steward, various dignitaries, dressage judges, vets etc etc/ Obviously they all need feeding, and well, but if you stopped calling it a Sponsors Marquee and made it a slightly less "exclusive" bar/restaurant you could still do that!

Our fence judges,stewards etc are the ones who really need looking after and cherishing and we try to do that with nice picnic lunches with homemade cake etc. If we saved a bit on the unnecessary Sponsors' Lunches and could afford to give them a bottle of wine each to go home with I think it would be better use of funds!

Sorry strayed off the point rather there. But I think what I'm saying is there isn't a lot of fat to trim at event level. My perception is that you could envisage a more "pared down" BE Centre but that's easy for us to say... Would be interesting to do a real study and see where/if significant cost savings could be made and where.
 
No-one is suggesting a 2-tier system, but if (say) there was a nominal membership charge of £10 a year to get you on the system, then the entry fee for every event included a £10 membership levy to BE (£5 for horse, £5 for rider) then surely along with paying BE the normal levy organisers have to pay, they could also pay the membership levy?

Then if you only run once in a season as I did last year, your payout is significantly less. Not sure why pros would mind considering they can offset it against tax or pass the costs on to the owners, and not sure why owners would mind as they would still be paying less than registering a horse is now....
 
I can see where your coming from lossing out cos your horse was ill - i just think this would be lots of admin

Surely it would be better and cheaper for BE to do a cash back offer, if either gg or rider of sick for season? on a sliding scale to a max of 2/3 events, so at least you would get % of your fees back?

just an idea i know you can get some back if you don't run at all due to injury
 
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thread
smile.gif
I think they should scrap the magazine, it's got more and more lavish, used to just be schedules, then schedules plus a bit of extra info, now it's a full blown glossy. It's actually quite good, but we don't get to choose whether they spend our money on producing it or not - the more people go for green memberships the more expensive per reader the magazine looks! Needs to go, sorry BE Marketing Department
wink.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

this was brought up at the meeting i attended at BE, and their reply was that the magazine is HUGELY popular with the amateur/lower-level riders, because they like having it on the coffee table to show off to friends that they are a 'real event rider' etc. (paraphrasing here, but that was the gist.) we all thought that was ridiculous, but BE stuck to their guns on it...
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thread
smile.gif
I think they should scrap the magazine, it's got more and more lavish, used to just be schedules, then schedules plus a bit of extra info, now it's a full blown glossy. It's actually quite good, but we don't get to choose whether they spend our money on producing it or not - the more people go for green memberships the more expensive per reader the magazine looks! Needs to go, sorry BE Marketing Department
wink.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

this was brought up at the meeting i attended at BE, and their reply was that the magazine is HUGELY popular with the amateur/lower-level riders, because they like having it on the coffee table to show off to friends that they are a 'real event rider' etc. (paraphrasing here, but that was the gist.) we all thought that was ridiculous, but BE stuck to their guns on it...

[/ QUOTE ]

how ludicrous!
blush.gif
surely if it is that popular then they could sell it in the shops like other magazines and then people would buy it if they wanted it
confused.gif

i think that the standard of the events does need to be kept- ESPECIALLY at the intro and PN level as we seem to be supporting hthe rest of the tree
smirk.gif
i hate it when i get to events and the course is all roll tops and logs
mad.gif

i think its membership that they need to look at- along the lines of pros paying more somehow? perhaps they could show pros as different from amateurs based on how much sponsorship they have?
confused.gif
i'm not sure how but i'm sure that costs could be cut somewhere.
confused.gif
 
That bit about the magazine is ridiculous tbh!

S_C The issue I can see there is for example you only do one event that is £10 membership to BE; total up admin, £7 rule book, membership card etc. they are losing money how I see it. Also would the rider fee be p/entry or event as the latter would have little impact on the pro/amateur divide as most pros run several horse at each event so BE wouldn't take in any more I don't think.
 
Per entry - the whole point is that those who compete most get charged most. And I don't need a paper rule book, am happy with online, ditto membership card, happy to print something off. Why couldn't BE charge £10 then you tick a box saying you also want to buy the extras you mention?
 
I think the membership fees should be different for am v pros.
A pro pays£100 (or whatever it is) and rides say 20 horses up to 200 events a year therefore their membership could be 50p per event!!!
I, evented 2 horses last year, one did 7 (2 FEI so more again) and the other did 8 (only 5 year old, went well so started late and ended early), so my membership was £7.50 per event!!!
Wow, I've scared myself, will stop doing maths!
blush.gif

But you see my point, why can't membership be 1-3 horses is £50 per year and 3-6 £100 and over 6 is £150 or something like this! I know some owners (or heard of them) that pay the riders membership to have the privelidge of them riding their horse!
shocked.gif
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the easy way to work out the membership costs on a sliding scale and whether it would be worth it for amateurs or not is as follows:

1. How much revenue do BE get from horse/rider memberships per year (A)

2. How many individual horse/rider combination entries do they get each year (B).

3. Divide A by B to get the levy per entry for membership - if that times by the number of events the average amateur does (say 12 tops) on one horse equates to more than the roughly £200 it is to register a horse with no points and a rider then for the grassroots competitors it isn't worth doing.

Anyone want to bother going through the accounts and working it out? Or alternatively point out the flaw in my reasoning and tell me a better way?!
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

i have a very detailed spreadsheet on this, prepared by an Event Organiser, proving that BE would make more money if registrations were in line with the number of events ridden at (higher for Pros), can email you it if you want...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I have this too please, sounds very intresting
 
[ QUOTE ]
the magazine is HUGELY popular with the amateur/lower-level riders, because they like having it on the coffee table to show off to friends that they are a 'real event rider' etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I leave my bank statements on my coffee table it has the same affect!
wink.gif
tongue.gif
grin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top