Gym Referendum...

Moorsy

Well the rumor mill has it (and Simon the aministrator in House 6) that the unoficial date for a student referendum on the Sports Hall in 10th May. The levy will be EUR 70 and from reading, and listening, in between the lines the referendum won't matter that much. DUCAC and College have already agree upon it and the referendum will only be run to test the waters as such.

Discuss.

Discuss yourself

Of course the referendum matters. No-one represents me but the SU in College. DUCAC can make representations all they want, but they don't have the power to charge me money on a yearly basis, especially without asking me!

Right, a few things about this.

1) Levy is €70 as set by the Dept of Sport.
The clubs were told that it would be €40 and that we should go about getting ready for a referendum
2) We were then told that the levy was €70, reason being that as all students would now be members, the Dept of Sport would be unable to raise as much from public access due to congestion etc.
3) There are a number of club who have to accept this as they are based in the new sports centre so if full membership price goes ahead, all members of these club will charge circa €160 for membership; which will kill off the smaller clubs.
4) DUCAC aren't really involved as all matters regarding the new sports centre falls under Department of Sport, wheras DUCAC just administer the clubs.

King.Penguin

Again this referendum doesn't mean much on it's own, it's really just an opinion poll. However, I've been told that the Dept. Of Sport and College will honour the result. I'm going to vote yes, because, I don't think there is a massive difference between ~700 and ~770 for registration. Furthermore, those people that will get grants and their reg fee paid for will get free gym rather than having to pay the 140 themselves. Also, most peoples parents will pay the registration fee. Now for those that pay the registration fee themselves, 70 euro is what? a days work? No biggie.

GG gym.

I disagree - if the referendum fails, then there is no open access to the gym while if it passes there is.

I would see that as meaning something in the scheme of things...

King.Penguin

sorry explain to me again? If this referendum passes (on may 10th or what not) that means we don't have to pay to use the gym over summer /trinity term. I was tempted to pay the 60 bucks or whatever it is. did you get this in a captain's email AP you sure it's true?

Oirthir

King.Penguin wrote:

I don't think there is a massive difference between ~700 and ~770 for registration.

The Student Services Charge for 06/07 was €800, not €700

Course, given that fees will be coming in over the summer.......

If the ref passes, then everyone pays €70 and everyone has open access to the gym, pool, climbing wall etc.

If the ref fails, then there is no €70 levy and people who want to use the facilities pay the fee of, circa, €150

Yes, I got this information from emails that were sent to club captains.

EDIT: This only takes effect from the start of the next academic year... sorry, missed that point the first time round

original_psycho

original_psycho wrote:

Right, a few things about this.

1) Levy is €70 as set by the Dept of Sport.
The clubs were told that it would be €40 and that we should go about getting ready for a referendum
2) We were then told that the levy was €70, reason being that as all students would now be members, the Dept of Sport would be unable to raise as much from public access due to congestion etc.
3) There are a number of club who have to accept this as they are based in the new sports centre so if full membership price goes ahead, all members of these club will charge circa €160 for membership; which will kill off the smaller clubs.
4) DUCAC aren't really involved as all matters regarding the new sports centre falls under Department of Sport, wheras DUCAC just administer the clubs.

There are still serious questions to be asked regarding the money the Department of Sport receive via the registration fee. I only have figures from 2004/5 (everything else is in Education land), but here's a blast from the past:

Hi all,

Here are the figures for the estimated breakdown of the registration fee in 2005, which was discussed at last night’s Exec.

The registration fee is €750 per student. €250 of this can be spent any way that College likes (as a result of a government decision in 2002) so the breakdown measured here is equivalent to €500 per student.

The figure for last year is €420 per student, because the registration fee was increased by €80 per student at the start of year.

Category        2004    2005       Increase    
                               
Per Student     420     500     19.05% 
Income       5266367 6343085 20.44% 
                               
Exams        1029260 1107787 7.60%  
Registration 1116449 1226449 9.85%  
Careers      587782  683000  16.20% 
Capitation  1094000 1110000 1.46%  
Health       379507  382000  0.66%  
Counselling 410493  515000  25.46% [B]
Sports       354615  404000  13.93% [/B]
Services     742089  772858  4.15%  
Space        1235079 1321535 7%

Registration includes Fees, Admissions and Records Office.

Space refers to Space costs associated with Student facilities

Services refers to Student Services and includes tutorial expenses of €455,000.


Francis Kieran

Students' Union President

Note that DUCAC is represented like the rest of the capitated bodies in the payment 'Capitation'. Regarding something Dave3x mentioned in a similar thread, he said how...

Dave3x wrote:

According to the director of Sport, Terry Mc Auley, the centre is expected to be self-sufficient and cover its 2 million a year running costs itself.

So does anyone know if the €1,050,000 (15,000 * 70) is a reduced figure, taking into account money from the registration fee, or whether the money which went to the Sports Centre normally (through the registration fee) is going to be re-distributed to other areas? Basically, what's happening to half a million euro in all this?!

That I don't know - I just get the emails from Dave Quinn and the other Captains.

I don't think that any of the above know the answers to that question.

Well, do you know if anyone is even asking these questions?!

At the last meeting I attended (not the one held today) between the Captains and the SU (Dave and Rob), there was no information about any of the financing from the Dept. of Sport. Though this was a couple of weeks back.

It was from this meeting that the €40 came from.

Ok, last question - the £2.5M which was collected before via a £50 levy per student per year for 4 years. This went solely towards the building of the structure? Can anyone confirm where this money was supposed to go (specifics, preferably)?

godtabh

Myth wrote:

Ok, last question - the £2.5M which was collected before via a £50 levy per student per year for 4 years. This went solely towards the building of the structure? Can anyone confirm where this money was supposed to go (specifics, preferably)?

I had to pay that fee and was told it was sponsor the new gym. I might have a receipt with the information on it. It may take a while to dig up but I'll try.

kearnsr

kearnsr wrote:

I had to pay that fee and was told it was sponsor the new gym.

Deadly, cheers. I'm just curious as to whether it was specifically to construct the new sports centre, to furnish the sports centre, or something else to do with the new sports centre (i.e. help run for the first year/two).

King.Penguin

i'm pretty sure it was to finance the construction of the new sports centre along with investment from enron or whowever that cowboy pharmaceutical company was (to the best of my recollection).

Jonnykitedude

The 2million + was put towards the 14million it cost to build the complex plus its estimated that it will cost 2million a year to run so they still have to raise 1million in staff and public memberships plus rentals etc

gilroyb

Elan were the company. They had a bit of a near bankruptcy problem, so they shelved their investment.

The differences in figures being suggested is fairly impressive. For all the money it seems to cost, that gym must be amazing.

Jonnykitedude

The gym is not but the other facilities are it’s a huge 6600 square meters:eek:

Dave3x

As for the other half million, I imagine they're not going to be able to have as many public/alumni members (if any) now. Which would explain how they'd have to re-budget to get students to cover more costs. No?

Tacitha

Ok, last question - the £2.5M which was collected before via a £50 levy per student per year for 4 years. This went solely towards the building of the structure? Can anyone confirm where this money was supposed to go (specifics, preferably)?

There, are a few old articles in the Irish Times archive which tie in with what I remember of this. First of all, it was 1997, Michelle Smith had just won all those medals in the olympics, and the only reason we didn't have more like her is that we had no 50-metre swimming pools in the country. So:

IRISH TIMES APRIL 15th 1997

TCD IS SET to take the initiative in the slow race to build Ireland's first 50 metre swimming pool.

Provost Thomas Mitchell is anxious that the college should update its sporting facilities in the light of the KPMG report, which was critical of TCD's sports provision. The college has a site adjoining its new residences at Goldsmith Hall, on the corner of Pearse Street, and the site has now been earmarked for an £8 million sports centre, which may include a 50 metre pool.

Half of the total cost of the proposed development will have to be met by private donations, with a further £1 million coming from the Higher Education Authority. The balance, it is proposed, will be met by students through a £50 levy, to be approved in a referendum early in the next academic year.

Mitchell is keen to start work on the centre by late 1997, with a completion date in 1998 - though there hash been considerable scepticism - about the realism of such a construction plan. Meanwhile, student groups are pressurising the college to be given a say in the administration of the money raised by the levy, with one suggestion being to use; some of the money for current expenditure on student facilities - in order to allow students in their final years to reap some of the fruits of the levy before they graduate.

Then we went to the polls. (It was one of those sudden referendums). One of the lines everyone was coming out with was, fifty pounds isn't that much, and people on grants won't have to pay.

IRISH TIMES April 29th 1997

Students get say on pool levy


STUDENTS in TCD will go to the polls this Thursday to decide if one of the most ambitious sports developments in the city centre, a £8 million sports centre on Pearse Street which is set to include the State's first 50 metre swimming pool, will get the go ahead.


At a meeting of the capitated bodies last week, student representatives voted overwhelmingly in favour of a £50 levy on students, to remain in place for five years, which would provide £2 million in funding for the centre. Half of the total cost of the centre will have to be raised through private donations, with £1 million coming from the Higher Education Authority and the remainder to be covered by the student levy.

A further £500,000 raised through the levy will be put towards an artificial playing surface at the university's Santry playing fields. "The union decided that the levy should be supported, so I'm in favour of the levy and the university is in favour of the levy," commented TCD students' union president Fergus Finnegan.

The university authorities are anxious that work should commence on the development as soon as possible, assuming a favourable outcome from Thursday's referendum. The proposed centre would be situated adjacent to Goldsmith Hall, the university's recently opened residential development, which also includes a bar and student society rooms.

So we voted yes, and a sports complex planning committee began to meet (there are minutes, but none of it is very useful) and then things went wrong, and people became very bitter about all that interest mounting up and no sign of a building, let alone a swimming pool:

IRISH TIMES, Jan 18th 2000

TCD mark their cards


Trinity students' union is to begin a campaign of sending postcards to the college's provost to highlight what it sees as shortcomings surrounding the new multi-million pound sports complex.


Among the union's complaints are that the Trinity authorities have not done enough to inform students about the new development.

"It's been left to us to publicise it in college and in outside newspapers," said SU president Dave Tighe. He also cites a lack of accountability about where the £2.5 million raised in a student levy has been spent. Finally, the SU feels that the students' contributions to fundraising for the complex by raising the levy have not been appreciated.

In reply, the college has produced a newsletter about the complex which, it says, was emailed to all students in Trinity from the sports department. This states that the student commitment is "widely appreciated" and "was critical in the college's success in securing funds". Whilst not addressing where all the money raised by students has gone, it says that the first year's levy went to pay for an all-weather pitch.

A college spokeswoman also said that the director of sport, Terry McAuley, was always available to answer questions.

And then - I am almost certain of this memory - of all the candidates for Provost in 2001, only Hegarty said he'd abolish the charge. They were all asked - most said they'd review the situation. But looking back at the IT articles, it may only have been voted in until 2002 anyway.

I have only a vague recollection of the wording on the ballot papers - I think we voted to put money towards the construction of sports facilities or something equally imprecise. Just as well, since we never got the 50 metre swimming pool, and waited ten years for anything at all . But there was another problem. Perhaps the terms have changed since, but it turned out in 1997 that the grant didn't cover local levies:

IRISH TIMES CAO Special 1999

There are also varying amounts to be paid to the seven universities - ranging from £30 in DCU to £50 in TCD. These are the local levies which are not covered by your grant.

(just quoting a little bit as it's part of a wider discussion, but worth clicking just to see the web design: http://www.ireland.com/special/cao/next/index1.htm )

Anyway, I'd be inclined to vote yes because I don't want DUCAC to suffer so much. But I think the grant situation would have to be solved, and some very strict limits set. Do students pay if the centre is closed for a year, or part of a year? When and how are prices raised? Can the levy be withdrawn by a subsequent referendum? What charges can the sports centre apply to users who are paying the levy? And will anyone actually know what we voted for in five or ten years time?

Dave3x

Dave3x wrote:

As for the other half million, I imagine they're not going to be able to have as many public/alumni members (if any) now. Which would explain how they'd have to re-budget to get students to cover more costs. No?

... so back to my point, students would then be paying for it through the registration fee, and then again through a levy?

/will reply to Tacitha in more detail later

From Herr Quinn:

Hi guys,

Please read this e-mail carefully as this is going to affect you directly:

With the recent opening of the new sports centre, there have been significant discussions with the SU, DUCAC, Sports Clubs and the Dept. of Sport over the optimal solution to fund the new centre. The situation as it currently stands is that from next year gym membership will be 150euro for the academic year / 180euro for the full year, regardless of whether you are training with a club or on your own. There will be no pay as you go facility.

As you may have read in the recent college media, a number of clubs have been pursuing the idea of an annual college sports centre charge on the student body. Yesterday, the SU received the required 250 signatures and so there will be a referendum on this issue in the coming weeks.

The wording of the referendum will be:

"Do you vote for TCDSU to support the introduction of an annual student sports centre charge of €70 to be paid with the registration fee for open membership of the sports centre for all students?
With the provision that:

· Students with financial hardship would be exempt from the charge, as moderated by the Senior Tutor's Office.
· Increases in the charge would be linked to inflation.
· The levy would be overseen by the SU and the Treasurer's Office."

According to the SU Constitution, there must be two weeks notice before this referendum may be run so polling will take place on Thursday 10th May and we’re considering polling on the morning Friday 11th May (day of the Ball) as well. The SU cannot take a direct stance on this referendum, which will be run by the Union's independent Electoral Commission. The Education Officer is the secretary to this group so, if you're interested in setting up or being involved in a campaign team for either side (ie. Yes or No); e-mail Rob on education@tcdsu.org. A campaign team must have 25 members to be considered official. If there are campaign teams on either side, a series of hustings will be organised. Notification of these will come if and when they are confirmed.

We understand that there is a very tight time element on this referendum which is unfortunate but beyond our control. The SU will be sending out unbiased information over the next week. We would encourage you to read this information and make an effort to vote. It is your decision. If you have any questions, send Rob or I an e-mail.

David Quinn

King.Penguin

Vote yes please.

xebec

King.Penguin wrote:

Vote yes please.

Will there be a 'Yes please' option on the ballot paper?! Does that mean there'll be a 'No thanks' too

xeduCat

So am I reading that mail correctly, that students who are in receipt of a maintenance grant (and thus not paying a registration fee) will still have to pay this compulsory sports fee, unless they can get a special dispensation on hardship grounds from STO?

Worth getting a clarification of this - am sure the campaign teams (if they exist - and I'd encourage interested parties to make them exist!) will tease it out anyway.

RuggieBear

I put €200 into that sucker between 1996 and 2000 and they are looking for yet more ****ing money.:(

xeduCat

xeduCat wrote:

Worth getting a clarification of this.

Plus does 'financial hardship' cover the student assistance fund? If a student's financial situation changes during the year, would they then be due a refund? Will you have to pay the sports charge up front, and then get a refund from the College which really negates the purpose of a grant?

Crash

This is one of the issues with referenda being brought by 250 signatures - generally they're poorly written. :P

Time Magazine

I'll be voting no.

I don't think it's fair for people who have no interest in the use of the gym (that's not me, btw) to subsidise those who do to the tune of €70.

Tacitha

Seventy euro is certainly a very high proportion of the current annual fees, and the motion seems open to interpretation and a fair amount of abuse. I don't oppose a subsidy in principle, but I think it would be better to pursue a separate arrangement for club training than to approve this motion. Whoever put it together may have meant well, but it's not robust.

What is 'open membership of the sports centre'? Free for the academic year? Free for the whole year? Free with no additional charges for swimming pools, saunas, peak times? Or just whatever we feel like giving out free this year?

What does moderated mean, in this context? Does the Senior Tutor decide which students are exempt, or by what criteria students become exempt? Does the Senior Tutor simply declare people exempt, or are their contributions covered from a hardship fund - that I think would be unacceptable. And of course, what qualifies as financial hardship? How does the first condition fit with the third? Will the Treasurer's Office, in its 'overseeing' of the levy, be able to set quotas for payment?

Who are all students? Postgrads don't pay an explicit registration fee - will they pay the levy? Will they then have to deal with the Senior Tutor, given that the GSO supposely fulfils equivalent functions? If the Senior Tutor, will s/he have the data on postgrads? That wouldn't normally be the case. If the GSO, will they have the mechanisms in place? (They aren't known for their efficiency). Have they been asked?

Increases in the charge would be linked to inflation - would that be all increases?

Will look forward to the unbiased information - perhaps someone could post it here if it comes in the form of an email please?

Will look forward to the unbiased information - perhaps someone could post it here if it comes in the form of an email please?

If I get anything sent out via undergrads@tcd.ie I'll post it up here (or I'm sure someone else will if I don't)!

€70 is 9% percent of the current fee, not that large an increase.

Open membership is exactly what it says; open membership to all sports facilities. No additional charges.

ASFAIK, the people from grants are exempt from the levy, email Rob the education officer for more details.

Don't know about postgrads, again, Rob has more info.

The €70 is linked to inflation, so should inflation go up x%, the fee will follow suit.

King.Penguin

The question is simple for me. If you have absolutely no interest in using the gym (sports clubs that use the facilities, showers, sauna, swimming pool, free weights, thread mills) on campus ever, vote no.

If you're sure you will use the gym, you like the idea of using the gym and might venture in from time to time, or you want to make the gym as accessible to as many people within college as possible, vote yes.

College is full of unhealthy people who eat and drink too much and exercise too little.

King.Penguin

of course, the gym will over "private" classes type things like spinning classes and step-aerobics. These will also have a pay as you go feel to them (not open to non-members). Some sports club will also have thier own little charges per sessoin (Taekwon-do (TKD) charge 1.50 per class I think).

If people have to sign up and pay 150 or more for a membership to the gym, a lot of casual users are going to be put off. The boxing club regularly has over 100 people training at the same time. The majority of these are casual trainers who probably don't take any other exercise other than this and aren't involved in other clubs. An annual membership will probably cut this number in half.

original_psycho

original_psycho wrote:

€70 is 9% percent of the current fee, not that large an increase.

That problem that still remains for me is not the cost, but the proposed budget of the Sports Centre, and the subsequent jump in the fee from €40 to €70 from that reported in TN to that in the referendum. That's almost half a million euro extra, plus the half a million euro that the Dept. of Sport already receive through the registration fee. So the Dept. of Sport could be receiving €1.3 M per year from students.

That's a spicy meatball.

Little more complicated then that...

Should the levy fail, then a number of sports centre based clubs coule be wiped out as their membership will be a minimum of €154 - Judo, boxing, fencing, Karate, basketball, swimming, climbing are just a few of the top of my head

Myth

Myth wrote:

That problem that still remains for me is not the cost, but the proposed budget of the Sports Centre, and the subsequent jump in the fee from €40 to €70 from that reported in TN to that in the referendum. That's almost half a million euro extra, plus the half a million euro that the Dept. of Sport already receive through the registration fee. So the Dept. of Sport could be receiving €1.3 M per year from students.

That's a spicy meatball.

Quinn came out with that figure as base to suggest to Dept of Sport.

Dept of Sport have said that if the levy suceeds, then they will have to cut down on the number of public memberships (which were going to be much more expensive then student membership and were planned to provide the most revenue) that they can offer, hence the rise...

original_psycho

original_psycho wrote:

Quinn came out with that figure as base to suggest to Dept of Sport.

Dept of Sport have said that if the levy suceeds, then they will have to cut down on the number of public memberships (which were going to be much more expensive then student membership and were planned to provide the most revenue) that they can offer, hence the rise...

But the TN article states how they were looking to get €500,000 from students, for a cost of running the centre of €2M. Has there been an increase in the cost of membership for non-students?

I think they estimated that circa 3,000 to 4,000 students would join the gym, thats the current gym membership plus an increase to take in the pool, wall etc.

They would then offer maybe another 3000 public memberships (based on rough calcs of the estimated public price).
Now that option is reduced since there would be 15,000 members...

Tacitha

9% percent of the current fee, not that large an increase.

Open membership is exactly what it says; open membership to all sports facilities. No additional charges.

ASFAIK, the people from grants are exempt from the levy, email Rob the education officer for more details.

Don't know about postgrads, again, Rob has more info.

The €70 is linked to inflation, so should inflation go up x%, the fee will follow suit.

What I meant is that €70 is almost half what you'd pay to join the gym for a year. So the referendum essentially hands the sports dept the equivalent of 6000 or so student members. This strikes me as a bit high compared with any revenue they might reasonably have expected from annual subscriptions.

More to the point, open membership doesn't say exactly anything - it's an extremely vague term. The problem is not that the motion is difficult to interpret - one can understand what is probably meant. The problem is that it is not expressed with enough precision to allow future student bodies, SUs etc to point to it and say what it permits, and, more importantly, what it doesn't.

Likewise, people with grants may be exempt from the levy, but what we aren't doing is voting to pay the levy only on condition that people on grants should be exempt - there's a difference.

I do think there are good intentions here, but why not produce a form a words that will protect student interests better?

Tacitha

Myth wrote:

If I get anything sent out via undergrads@tcd.ie I'll post it up here (or I'm sure someone else will if I don't)!

Thanks

xeduCat

I think it would be useful to have a scheme negotiated first - and published - before a vote takes place. That is the normal way of things, in my experience and what I remember from the relevant documents. Otherwise, there could easily be a need for a second referendum, as the text of this referendum is pretty much just a vague thumbs-up. The normal way, and the pattern in other institutions, is for a draft scheme for the new fee to be circulated (accepting that some details may have to be worked out), and for that scheme to be put to the student body for approval.

King.Penguin

Well I think the Department of Sport are only looking for a vague thumbs up towards the gym membership being included in an increased registration fee (or perhaps as extra). Ultimately they can decide what they want to charge. The SU could have a referendum on introducing 1 euro charges for taking books out of the library and the outcome wouldn't mean that charges would be introduced.

xeduCat

King.Penguin wrote:

Well I think the Department of Sport are only looking for a vague thumbs up towards the gym membership being included in an increased registration fee (or perhaps as extra). Ultimately they can decide what they want to charge. The SU could have a referendum on introducing 1 euro charges for taking books out of the library and the outcome wouldn't mean that charges would be introduced.

True, but certainly past practice (and HEA guidance) has been that where a fee is mandatory (i.e. that a student cannot register without having paid it), and the fee is above and beyond the student charge approved by the Dept. of Education (which it would be, therefore making it reg fee + levy rather than bigger-reg-fee), it needs to be approved by a vote of the student body. If things like the level of access etc are deferred to post-approval, it wouldn't be hard for a student to claim that there was a difference between the thumbs-up and the actual scheme.

Therefore a levy-referendum, while the same in terms of internal SU rules and vote-counting etc, is different to a normal vote in how it is treated by external authorities (i.e. College, HEA etc).

The registration fee is subject to a general national maximum - that's why the other institutions with active levies/charges/etc normally account for it differently.

That, incidentally, is how the grantholder question arises - a local authority will pay the Department-approved fee but not anything additional - so it becomes a question for the institution to decide who should and shouldn't pay in that case. Practice on that seems to differ from place to place.

As you can see, a lot of this is based on customs or best practice and so on - not hard rules. Many of these issues would have been thought through at the time of the construction levy - but there are very few people still around from those days. I did try to put together an overview of levying systems and practices for USI - but abandoned it midway.

regi

RuggieBear wrote:

I put €200 into that sucker between 1996 and 2000 and they are looking for yet more ****ing money.:(

Yep, I paid it too. Still, they built a nice car park there instead.

King.Penguin

Myth wrote:

That problem that still remains for me is not the cost, but the proposed budget of the Sports Centre, and the subsequent jump in the fee from €40 to €70 from that reported in TN to that in the referendum. That's almost half a million euro extra, plus the half a million euro that the Dept. of Sport already receive through the registration fee. So the Dept. of Sport could be receiving €1.3 M per year from students.

That's a spicy meatball.

I think the 40 euro figure was just something the captain's put together without actually consulting the DOS or seeing their figures. When they brought this figure to DOS and the ducac committee it was dismissed as being much too low. I've been told the sports centre needs to make 2 million a year to make profit. It's also supposed to be self-sufficient. Now, I'm not sure how much of the registration fee other than the 70 euro extra bit they'll receive. Originally the idea was 70% of running costs would be covered by Public membership (outsiders) while they'd only be using the gym 30% of the time (weekends and some nights). With this levy, this has changed things as DOS now expect much more students to be using the gym then previously. Someone told me they'll also need more staff to deal with the increase in customers (more students).

Time Magazine

original_psycho wrote:

Little more complicated then that...

Should the levy fail, then a number of sports centre based clubs coule be wiped out as their membership will be a minimum of €154 - Judo, boxing, fencing, Karate, basketball, swimming, climbing are just a few of the top of my head

I don't see that happening.

Do you really think the DoS/DUCAC/Board will allow a situation where there is no swimming club but a swimming pool, no climbing club but a climbing wall. It's a sunk cost.

I fully intend to use the gym next year when I have time because of two hours less commuting per day. As a grant recipient, it also looks likely that if this referendum passed, I wouldn't have to pay a penny. I still don't think it's fair on people (e.g. europerson) to pay €70 to subsidise my use of a gym which I don't really think is under threat. I cannot see a situation where they have sign on the door saying "€150 in or you can't play ball." There's no demand to sustain that and we'd have a huge sunk cost that's getting no use. There would be no sports clubs. I can't see that happening. I just can't.

frisbeeface

Ibid wrote:

I don't see that happening.

Do you really think the DoS/DUCAC/Board will allow a situation where there is no swimming club but a swimming pool, no climbing club but a climbing wall. It's a sunk cost.

I fully intend to use the gym next year when I have time because of two hours less commuting per day. As a grant recipient, it also looks likely that if this referendum passed, I wouldn't have to pay a penny. I still don't think it's fair on people (e.g. europerson) to pay €70 to subsidise my use of a gym which I don't really think is under threat. I cannot see a situation where they have sign on the door saying "€150 in or you can't play ball." There's no demand to sustain that and we'd have a huge sunk cost that's getting no use. There would be no sports clubs. I can't see that happening. I just can't.

There was certainly an intention to only let people use the gym if they were full members, which would have decimated a few clubs as has been said ad nauseum. Maybe next year they would have turned around and said "Ah we were only kidding lads, you can use the hall for free if you want" but I don't think the clubs weren't really willing to chance that.

As a matter of interest, why wasn't Luce Hall kept open as well? Two sports centres would be awesome.

frisbeeface

frisbeeface wrote:

As a matter of interest, why wasn't Luce Hall kept open as well? Two sports centres would be awesome.

Part of it is becoming a student centre. But I've no idea what's happening with it at this moment in time.

shay_562

King.Penguin wrote:

I think the 40 euro figure was just something the captain's put together without actually consulting the DOS or seeing their figures.

The original figure of €40-50 came from a meeting on Friday 23rd February between various captains, SU reps and college people (including the director of sport, Terry McAuley and the chair of DUCAC, Trevor West). I'm not sure why it's gone up so much since then.

Ibid wrote:

Do you really think the DoS/DUCAC/Board will allow a situation where there is no swimming club but a swimming pool, no climbing club but a climbing wall. It's a sunk cost.

And yet, if the referendum doesn't pass, Original_Psycho is right - it will essentially cost freshers the price of a year's gym membership to join a club. For the people who are seriously active in any of these clubs, that may well be a sacrifice they're willing to make. For anyone who isn't that sporty and may join something new (say volleyball or kendo) for the laugh and on the off-chance they may like it, the price will become too high. While me trying to talk economics to you is clearly ridiculous, it's bloody obvious that rising prices cause a fall in demand, and when the cost of trying fencing or climbing for the first time goes up by 3000%, new people will inevitable be discouraged. This means clubs lose new members (who are vital to sustaining any club) and an awful lot of funding - even 200 people joining for the laugh in FW translates to a grand of equipment, travel money, strips etc. How, exactly, are DoS/DUCAC/Board planning on dealing with this?

From what I gather (from people who have attended the meetings with them, the attitude of the bodies mentioned above is essentially "wait and see" - they don't think that this will be an issue because people will join the fantastic new gym anyway. While I don't think that DoS/DUCAC are sitting in their offices scheming about ways in which to destroy sports in TCD, I equally don't think they've properly considered the potential risks associated with the proposed system, and I'm worried that even if they see a problem after a couple of years and change it, the damage will be done. Anyone involved in a club knows how harmful a couple of bad years can be - if there aren't enough freshers rising through the ranks to replace previous teams, the A-teams of clubs become weaker, which makes it harder to train new people effectively, which leads to further weakening of teams, and so on and so forth. When you ask if they'll "allow" a situation where people aren't joining clubs, you seem to missing the point - they're not just allowing it, they're actively creating it, through a mixture of arrogance and ignorance.