Proposed *lowering* of race entry fees

donothoponpop

http://imra.ie/events/view/id/703/

The IMRA AGM is being held after the Powerscourt Ridge Race, on Nov 9th. Among the motions is one which proposes:"(1) Registration and Race Entry Fees for 2010 shall be as follows: Registration five euro and Race Entry three euro."
(The current figures are €10 reg, €7 per race). It's one I'll certainly agree with, the flip side being extra volunteering next year. At a time when race entry fees are often set at €50+, hopefully the imra model is something which will long continue. Can this organization get any better?:)
AGM is open to anyone who is registered with IMRA.

RacoonQueen

I really need to start doing some IMRA races have wanted to do them for so long and keep putting it off because I'm still carless.

robinph

It's not entry fees in that range that need to be changed though, it's the ones that currently have the decimal point one place further to the right in their pricing that need to be changed.

echat

Amazing, I would imagine a reduction like that would more than halve the annual income as entry fees and the annual registration fee are effectively the only source of income for IMRA as the Irish Sports Council does not provide any funding. I suppose it would mean far fewer race prizes, spot prizes, end of league prizes, sandwiches etc. :eek: but less cost to enter a race. Looks like we will be using the smelly numbers for the future! Three euro, you could drop it and not bother to pick it up in the Celtic Tiger days J

donothoponpop

echat wrote: »

Amazing, I would imagine a reduction like that would more than halve the annual income as entry fees and the annual registration fee are effectively the only source of income for IMRA as the Irish Sports Council does not provide any funding. I suppose it would mean far fewer race prizes, spot prizes, end of league prizes, sandwiches etc. :eek: but less cost to enter a race. Looks like we will be using the smelly numbers for the future! Three euro, you could drop it and not bother to pick it up in the Celtic Tiger days J

You could also offset any reduced income against the International races, which almost take up as big a percentage of expenditure as prizes etc. I would prefer to see this aspect being funded from the Sports Council (or at least a large chunk of it). At present it is funded by IMRA and the athletes themselves. The High Performance Officer has played his part with huge enthusiasm in organizing the International aspect, and I'm sure he wouldn't like to see any reduction in funding. On the other hand, I've talked to quite a few people who disagree that so much of IMRA's income is is being spent on a minority of elites. Its an interesting debate, and I can see valid points on both sides.

By and large, although I would be happy enough to continue to pay €7 entry, but would prefer to pay €3. The value of €3 has increased significantly for me recently, as I'm sure it has for lots of others. Mainly, I was just very heartened to see this proposal to reduce fees significantly, when it seems that a lot of race organizers seem to feel that running races is a license to print money.

TFBubendorfer

To be perfectly honest, €7 is already so low that a reduction would not have any effect on me.

I'm amazed at the offer, though!

Slogger Jogger

Don't see a price change from 7 is warranted myself but if its what the majority want. Although having race directed on a no. of occasions I'd be happier carrying less cash after the event. Whichever way its hands down the best value in the land. And Powerscourt Ridge, last race of the year (not withstanding the Sugarloaf race), is a classic. I'd gladly pay more to run that.

donothoponpop

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Don't see a price change from 7 is warranted myself but if its what the majority want.

So would you vote against the proposal, and if so, why? There doesn't seem to have been any debate on this over on the IMRA forum, so I'm really interested in people's thoughts. It's also an apt discussion for non-IMRA races, and for pricing structures in general.

I'm on the committee of our local Community Games, and at the AGM, the chairman, who is a real old-school, doing-it-for-the-love-of-the-sport, type of guy, suggested that we train the kids for half the year for the princely sum €0, his reasoning being that the committee didn't have any bills, and the training field is free (local GAA). If we started charging them and taking in money, we'd just find ways to spend it. Even thinking about it now brings a smile to my face, and I'm happy enough to help him and his enthusiasm by volunteering in the sport. This IMRA proposal seems to be coming from a similar vein, and at very least I applaud its generous nature. There's something about it that lifts my spirits:)

jlang

If it came to a vote, I'd vote against. I haven't looked for or at the accounts, but unless there's an embarrassingly large surplus this year, I don't really see a reason for cutting the race fee from 7, other than to set a good example for other race providers, given the economic situation etc etc. I figure an IMRA race probably costs me as much in petrol/tolls as race fee. If there's a big surplus, I'd prefer to see it going back into the organisation in some way, maybe buying equipment (is there need for a defibrillator or a new laptop) or some subsidised IMRA kit, as subsidy for travel for the international teams or volunteer training. If there's really no need for money, a donation to mountain rescue or mountain conservation or even a series of major piss-ups for the committee and race directors, who surely deserve it. Dropping the annual reg fee to EUR 2/3 or altogether might be an idea, just in case it puts someone off doing their first race. But on the other hand, new constitutions don't really matter to the runner in a race, so this is the kind of thing AGMs should discuss and if the AGM decides to cut the fees, I and my wallet will think everything's just great.

GoHardOrGoHome

Unfortunately I won't be able to make it to the AGM this year.

I'm not sure which way I'd vote if I was attending the AGM. 7 euro is a paltry enough figure in my opinion.

However, I'd like to see an annual membership option of, say, 100 euro which would allow you to do as many races as you want. We don't really need to take 262 euro off Tommy Galvin every year (36 races so far this year plus 10 euro registration). 100 euro equates to roughly 13 races per year (+ 10 euro registration).

Next year I'll come up with a few proposals - maybe subsidising some training weekends in Kerry or subsidising the hostel for the Connaught Championship weekend.

Peckham

Picked up Running Times magazine whilst in UK last weekend. There's an opinion piece in it that argues for race fees to be increased where the demand exists.

Makes some convincing arguments.

robinph

Is there not a much larger number of races to choose from in the UK though, and with a generally smaller entry fee as well.

belcarra

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

7 euro is a paltry enough figure in my opinion.

I agree with this!

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

However, I'd like to see an annual membership option of, say, 100 euro which would allow you to do as many races as you want. We don't really need to take 262 euro off Tommy Galvin every year (36 races so far this year plus 10 euro registration). 100 euro equates to roughly 13 races per year (+ 10 euro registration).

Excellent idea!

I wonder what Enduro reckons about all this...surely it'll mean less prize money for him and his personal ATM! Just teasing with ya!:D
I imagine the prizes were never that large anyways?

One thing that I wasn't so sure about though was the Spot prizes...Are they needed? I was at about 13 races last year and never got one. Neither did any of my 3 mates who would have a similar attendance record. It did leave a feeling of maybe we were fools to be funding these prizes. Although maybe they were supplied free of charge from the local hostelry of the particular night?? I can't get too upset however as I failed to volunteer at all, something which I intend rectifying early next season!

dna_leri

donothoponpop wrote: »

So would you vote against the proposal, and if so, why? There doesn't seem to have been any debate on this over on the IMRA forum, so I'm really interested in people's thoughts. It's also an apt discussion for non-IMRA races, and for pricing structures in general.

I'm on the committee of our local Community Games, and at the AGM, the chairman, who is a real old-school, doing-it-for-the-love-of-the-sport, type of guy, suggested that we train the kids for half the year for the princely sum €0, his reasoning being that the committee didn't have any bills, and the training field is free (local GAA). If we started charging them and taking in money, we'd just find ways to spend it. Even thinking about it now brings a smile to my face, and I'm happy enough to help him and his enthusiasm by volunteering in the sport. This IMRA proposal seems to be coming from a similar vein, and at very least I applaud its generous nature. There's something about it that lifts my spirits:)

Peckham wrote: »

Picked up Running Times magazine whilst in UK last weekend. There's an opinion piece in it that argues for race fees to be increased where the demand exists.

Makes some convincing arguments.

I don't know anything about IMRA but I think what it comes down to is each organistion looking at what their reasons for existing are and then balancing these sometimes conflicting demands. For many clubs the purpose is increasing participation and standards in their sport without losing money, so when they organise local events such as a winter league it is with this in mind and market forces play little or no role.

At the other end of the spectrum, the purpose is to make money and the big race organisers can charge according to what the market will sustain in the long term. In some cases they pay lip-service to "putting money back into the sport" or "supporting charities" because they think that's what the potential participants want.

I think the RT article is correct in saying what you may end up with is "a de facto two-tier categorization of races". However there should still be room for the races in the middle: well-run, moderately priced, no-frills races, usually organised by a club and its volunteers where as well as increasing participation the club makes a profit which is put towards facilities or athlete development.

In some cases at the low cost end of the market, there is room for pushing up prices - I would not mind paying 5 euro instead of 2-3 euro for local club races if the extra 2-3 euro was going back into the club instead of just covering costs. In any case, the most important type of race in terms of developing the sport is the one in the middle, usually priced in the 10 to 20 euro range because this gets the right mix between participation and profit.

On the subject of training the kids for nothing, isn't that what always happens? I know our club only charges when we use the track to cover cost of hiring the track. If training is on grass, then there is no fee. Parents of newcomers are often surprised as they are used to paying for some other similar training. Whatever about increasing fees for races, this ethos is important in athletics.

donothoponpop

Thanks for the replies so far, general concencus seems to be that €7 is great value as it is. On a couple of points:

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I really need to start doing some IMRA races have wanted to do them for so long and keep putting it off because I'm still carless.

There's a great carpool system that operates for each race, on the event page. Usually, its very easy to get a friendly lift to/from Dublin.

jlang wrote: »

... maybe buying equipment (is there need for a defibrillator or a new laptop)...

I think they just bought a defibrillator this year.

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

...
However, I'd like to see an annual membership option of, say, 100 euro which would allow you to do as many races as you want. We don't really need to take 262 euro off Tommy Galvin every year (36 races so far this year plus 10 euro registration). 100 euro equates to roughly 13 races per year (+ 10 euro registration)...

belcarra wrote: »

I agree with this!

Excellent idea!

Me too!

belcarra wrote: »

One thing that I wasn't so sure about though was the Spot prizes...Are they needed? I was at about 13 races last year and never got one. Neither did any of my 3 mates who would have a similar attendance record. It did leave a feeling of maybe we were fools to be funding these prizes. Although maybe they were supplied free of charge from the local hostelry of the particular night?? I can't get too upset however as I failed to volunteer at all, something which I intend rectifying early next season!

Think you've answered your own question there It astounds me how the IMRA-randomizing-spot-prize-generator invariably picks out the volunteers! I've also seen an imbalance of spot prizes going to newbies at the weekend races

Krusty_Clown

They're a trusted organization, that put every cent back into the sport, so I don't see the issue with IMRA saving for a rainy-day. If IMRA really feel the need to drop the fees, drop it to €5, and bank the extra for re-investment.

€5 sounds like a nice round figure (easier to manage money transfer on race days) and representes fantastic value for money. As is the case for others, I'm more than happy to pay €7.

Poncherello

Drop it to a fiver if you really want to and put the extra cash towards facilities for manaing the surge in numbers you are going to most likely continue to see

RacoonQueen

What sort of numbers do you get at IMRA races?

belcarra

donothoponpop wrote: »

Think you've answered your own question there. It astounds me how the IMRA-randomizing-spot-prize-generator invariably picks out the volunteers! I've also seen an imbalance of spot prizes going to newbies at the weekend races

I think it's one of those 'unofficial situations', huh!;)

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If IMRA really feel the need to drop the fees, drop it to €5, and bank the extra for re-investment.

€5 sounds like a nice round figure (easier to manage money transfer on race days) and representes fantastic value for money.

It'd also make the €5 note handier to carry than the coins!

RacoonQueen wrote: »

What sort of numbers do you get at IMRA races?

Usually approx 160-200 for the Leinster league.

Peterx

Plenty of good suggestions here, God bless boards.

I particularly like the ideas of subsidising the Connaught accomodation and the notion of the annual fee for Tommy Tumbler.

On a personal level I will vote against lowering the race fees, they are already the cheapest in the land and are our main source of income. Motions generate debate though and so are a good thing



We got the de-fib this year and are running first aid training, there's a note on the IMRA forum about the first aid training for any of ye that are on the first aid panel.

Slogger Jogger

Think I'd vote against it too. There could be something though in Gohard's suggestion.. Possibly a compromise. Say 10'er a race up to a given no., say EUR100 and free thereafter. A 10er is a handier no., requiring no change. I'm not far off Tommy this year in terms of races. The EUR200+ quid that I've spent on (34) races has been the best value I've gotten all year.

Personally, I think the spot prizes are unnecessary. Its one more hassle for the race director and I don't think people would miss them one way or another.

Very happy to see investment in the right things, like a defribulator. Looking forward to that training.

donothoponpop

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

... There could be something though in Gohard's suggestion...

Turns out we're too late to get anything proposed as an AGM motion (closed last Sat); I was getting mixed up with proposals for the EGM constitution (close this Sat). Pity, as the maximum entry fee seems like a good reward for enthusiasts.

Next year:)

VerySlowRunner

I see the motions for the draft constitution have been posted on the IMRA website this morning.

I think there have been a lot of interesting points made so of which made me see other things that are too late to bring forward as motions but it doesn't prevent discussion about them.

In comparing the old constitution against the new draft, it is not obvious to me that there is equivalent for section 14 of the old constitution "Transitional Provisions" which I don't really understand - but wonder if its not included, what that will mean in the future.

Woddle

donothoponpop wrote: »

I'm on the committee of our local Community Games, and at the AGM, the chairman, who is a real old-school, doing-it-for-the-love-of-the-sport, type of guy, suggested that we train the kids for half the year for the princely sum €0, his reasoning being that the committee didn't have any bills, and the training field is free (local GAA). If we started charging them and taking in money, we'd just find ways to spend it. Even thinking about it now brings a smile to my face, and I'm happy enough to help him and his enthusiasm by volunteering in the sport. This IMRA proposal seems to be coming from a similar vein, and at very least I applaud its generous nature. There's something about it that lifts my spirits:)

Firstly IMRA is clearly the best value around and there seems to be a great social side to things aswell, it should stay at 7 euro.
On a different note I don't like the attitude that you should be doing it for free, swimming, music, ballet lessons all cost money so why do people feel they can off load their kids for free, because they know thats the way things are done in athletics.
My ideal job would be to coach 10-15 kids and get paid for it, this might sound bad but getting paid for it would allow me to put so much time into it, I also get a kick out of kids and enjoy the sport but whats the harm in getting paid for your time, to me it would be a win win.
It also reminds me of my time as an electrician, you would go price a job and then get under cut by an apprentice but who do you think would have done the better job.

donothoponpop

Woddle wrote: »

Firstly IMRA is clearly the best value around and there seems to be a great social side to things aswell, it should stay at 7 euro.
On a different note I don't like the attitude that you should be doing it for free, swimming, music, ballet lessons all cost money so why do people feel they can off load their kids for free, because they know thats the way things are done in athletics.
My ideal job would be to coach 10-15 kids and get paid for it, this might sound bad but getting paid for it would allow me to put so much time into it, I also get a kick out of kids and enjoy the sport but whats the harm in getting paid for your time, to me it would be a win win.
It also reminds me of my time as an electrician, you would go price a job and then get under cut by an apprentice but who do you think would have done the better job.

That's a valid point you're making, however, lest I gave the wrong impression, there was never any suggestion that the Community Games coaches would be paid. The issue was "subs" or not, and since we needed no equipment, there'll probably be at most a token charge, or nothing at all. I've no problem doing it for free (in any case I'm very much an apprentice;)). Some people will invariably see "free coaching=free babysitting", but most of the people and their kids are great about it, and its fantastic to see kids getting fitter and having fun, and that's it's own reward.

Woddle

Sorry DP I probably sound like a right grinch or sth and you do make a very valid point.

donothoponpop

Woddle wrote: »

Sorry DP I probably sound like a right grinch or sth and you do make a very valid point.

LOL no problems, in any case I'm a bit of a pinko commie when it comes to money; volunteering is my twisted way of giving two fingers to the government/bankers/whoever-else-greedy-baxtards-that-currently-grinds-my-gears;)

VerySlowRunner

I think dropping the fees could bring in more runners.

I am not against new runners but IMRA does not have the necessary equipment to manage bigger numbers than what they already have. They might even be hard-press with the existing numbers in some cases.

It can be difficult to manage large groups of people and process them which could lead to major safety concerns.

There have been attempts to improve this problem, but until proper measures are put in place, I would be opposed to lowering the fees.

Enduro

To the IMRA contingent....

Make sure and turn up at the AGM and get involved in any debate you want. The AGM (and extra free EGM this time ) is your main opportunity to give feedback to the incoming committee (and indeed vote for the new committee) and influence the direction the organisation will take. It's pointless posting on here and then not turning up.

The reason for upping the fees a few years ago was pretty disgusting (Numbers were getting too big, causing the problems that VSR aludes to and the committee decided on the country club option of trying to price the less wealthy out of races), but now that they're in and established I don't see the need to reduce them, except to maybe 5 euro to round to notes.

Having said that, there were two very interesting motions put forward to the AGM two years ago that I thought were crazy before the AGM, but after the debate I voted for both of them. Its always interesting to hear peoples reasoning and, sometimes lateral, thinking.

donothoponpop

+1^

Some relevant news is that GoHard's proposal on the €100 yearly entry will be brought up at the AGM (in his absence), although it may not be as binding as two-week-prior-published proposals, if it is endorsed, it will probably be adopted by the committee. Same goes for any other business brought up from the floor, which is good news.

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

The reason for upping the fees a few years ago was pretty disgusting (Numbers were getting too big, causing the problems that VSR aludes to and the committee decided on the country club option of trying to price the less wealthy out of races), but now that they're in and established I don't see the need to reduce them, except to maybe 5 euro to round to notes.

I think in fairness the last proposed rise in fees did not take place for this exact reason.
Also there are lower fees for those on pension/juniors. I see adding those on social welfare to this group as a good addition.

Peterx

Going to the EGM/AGM and expressing your opinion and then also voting on it is the main way of getting yourself heard.

Joining the committee is the other way.

Suggestions such as the €100 fee can be brought to the attention of the committee at any time, either via email or in person at the races. They don't especially need a motion to be considered.

see ye Saturday for a race, then some buying of the yearbook, then some soup and then the EGM!

Enduro

T runner wrote: »

I think in fairness the last proposed rise in fees did not take place for this exact reason.
Also there are lower fees for those on pension/juniors. I see adding those on social welfare to this group as a good addition.

That's a summary of the reasons given at the AGM... to try and reduce numbers at races by pricing people out of doing races by making it too expensive for them. I tried to amend it to allow discounted fees for unwaged etc, and this was flatly rejected by the proposer of the motion. That really disgusted me.

HardyEustace

Enduro wrote: »

That's a summary of the reasons given at the AGM... to try and reduce numbers at races by pricing people out of doing races by making it too expensive for them. I tried to amend it to allow discounted fees for unwaged etc, and this was flatly rejected by the proposer of the motion. That really disgusted me.

Just out of interest, what was their reason for rejecting discounted fees for the unwaged? I'm struggling to think of a legitimate argument against it.

Peterx

Without having had a part in the drafting of the motion and staying firmly off any high ground or horses i can think of several "reasons" (I'm not saying they are right or wrong)

1: The motion was written in a time of full employment
2: Race fees are still the lowest in the country
3: To register 250 runners in 30 minutes you need to process one runner every 7 seconds. Complicating the payment options could slow the procedure.

Having said all that we now most certainly do not live in a time of full employment and there is more attraction to having a lowered race fee for the unwaged.
This is the type of thing the committee should be empowered to decide upon, with or without a motion to force the issue.

Enduro

I can't speak for the people who proposed and supported the motion, but if I was to be logical about it I would say that if the idea was to price people out of doing races then giving the less well off reduced fees would be totally counterproductive. In fact, pricing out the unwaged was exactly the aim, logically speaking.

Now, as well as finding the whole thing morally repugnant, my other problem was that it was totally illogical. The main problem they were attempting to solve was too many cars chasing too few car parking spaces at the race starts. The people who were least likely to be arriving on their own in cars to races were the very people they were likely to price out of racing, leaving behind less runners, but pretty much the same amount of cars. Pretty stupid badly thought out logic, I thought. I don't understand why they didn't just directly address the car parking issue.

This is the type of thing the committee should be empowered to decide upon, with or without a motion to force the issue.

I agree with that, and I think its covered in the new constitution, if it gets ratified.

robinph

Free race entry if you bring three other entrtants in your car with you to the race?

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

I can't speak for the people who proposed and supported the motion, but if I was to be logical about it I would say that if the idea was to price people out of doing races then giving the less well off reduced fees would be totally counterproductive.

In 2005 the race fee was increased from €5 to €7. The first increase in 5 years and still the lowest fee in the land. How could logic possibly lead you to the conclusion that the aim of this €2 increase was to price the less well off from running. I believe the €2 euro was to be mainly used to fund Juniors (along with WW relay) and contribute towards our international athletes travel fares etc when representing the country in mountain running..

In fact, pricing out the unwaged was exactly the aim, logically speaking.

Youve just stated you couldnt speak for the people who raised the motion or supported it: has some kind of transformation occurred between writing your first sentence and your second?

Now, as well as finding the whole thing morally repugnant, my other problem was that it was totally illogical. The main problem they were attempting to solve was too many cars chasing too few car parking spaces at the race starts. The people who were least likely to be arriving on their own in cars to races were the very people they were likely to price out of racing, leaving behind less runners, but pretty much the same amount of cars. Pretty stupid badly thought out logic, I thought. I don't understand why they didn't just directly address the car parking issue.

The car-parking was not the issue: it was people turning up and running every race and not bothering/no facilty to volunteer.
The same people directed every single race week in/week out and they were getting burnt out.


A solution was to have fewer, harder races which would reduce the workload.
The actual solution arrived with the advent of the volunteering era, with different people responsible for different races meaning no reduction in numbers were necessary. The price increase was unrelated.

These people (behind the motion) were possibly two of the most hardworking people ever to have held the reins at IMRA and took it to a new level of runner experience. Morally repugnant are not two words I would associate with them.

Volunteering has indeed almost brought an end to the day of runners running every race they could without lifting a finger to help their morally repugnant servants.

(Speaking about harder races I hear Paul Nolan may be directing the Leinster Championship this year. Sounds like more wilderness and less tracks)

Peterx

Powerscourt IMRA race will have an additional pricing level........

.........€20

This €20 will include a free yearbook:D

Otherwise you can pay the usual €7 and buy the yearbook at the Glencormac Inn for €15.

donothoponpop

Peterx wrote: »

Suggestions such as the €100 fee can be brought to the attention of the committee at any time, either via email or in person at the races. They don't especially need a motion to be considered.

You're right, there'll not be enough hours in the day for race, EGM, new constitution, AGM, and then talking about other matters in depth. It's great to see some of the ideas taking shape over on the IMRA forum though, there'll be lots for a new committee to mull over. Good to see the IMRA forum so active and what a great post by DO'C!

And having this debate has helped sway my vote- hadn't known before about " Known costs possibly coming down the line such as member to member insurance cover, a new timing system, a laptop etc. for Munster if they hold a lot more races, hosting the British and Irish junior international, etc. also need to be factored in." The largesse of IMRA has limits, and if the money is needed for these items, then the fair €7 seems fairer still.

Enduro

T runner wrote: »

In 2005 the race fee was increased from €5 to €7. The first increase in 5 years and still the lowest fee in the land. How could logic possibly lead you to the conclusion that the aim of this €2 increase was to price the less well off from running. I believe the €2 euro was to be mainly used to fund Juniors (along with WW relay) and contribute towards our international athletes travel fares etc when representing the country in mountain running..

T, I was at the AGM. I listened as I heard the explanations for what the intentions of the increase was. Were you there? You're certainly speaking like someone who didn't hear what the proposer's had to say, and the long discussion that ensued.

IMRA had no pressing cash requirements at the time. On the contary, Money was rolling into the bank account at a rate faster than it could be spent due, of course, to the increased numbers.

And for your information... the extra money WAS NOT originally intended to be used for travel fares for the international athletes. I actually put in an amendment to the effect that it should be (which was accepted), and thus it did in the end get used that way. But it most certainly wasn't the orginal intention at all. Again, it sounds like you weren't there.

As you can see, I was strongly involved in the debate, and have very clear memories, not just conjectures, about what was said.

Youve just stated you couldnt speak for the people who raised the motion or supported it: has some kind of transformation occurred between writing your first sentence and your second?

Try reading what I said again, and you might understand it. I didn't say I was speaking for the people who proposed the motion. I said I was looking at it logically myself. So no transformation occured. It would be far easier if you debated what I actually said as opposed to what you would prefer I had said.

The car-parking was not the issue: it was people turning up and running every race and not bothering/no facilty to volunteer.
The same people directed every single race week in/week out and they were getting burnt out.

Volunteering has indeed almost brought an end to the day of runners running every race they could without lifting a finger to help their morally repugnant servants.

How would raising the race entry fees fix the volunteering issue? How was raising the race fee to seen euro supposed to magically make people volunteer to help out at races? How could you possibly logically link race fees with volunteering? It was, and still is, completely unrelated. It was a different debate. It was an issue at the same time, but that doesn't mean the two were in any way linked.

Morally repugnant are not two words I would associate with them.

I have stated quite clearly what I found to be morally repugnant. To recap, that is to try and tackle the issue of excess numbers turning up at races by trying to price the more cost-sensitive people out of running. And then compounding this by refusing to provide lower race entry fees for the unwaged etc. Those actions to me are disgusting, no matter how hard working and likeable the people who put them forward are, or whether they are friends of mine or not. I have expressed my strong views on the matter on several occasions in public forum (in the real world) in the presence of those involved. Out of interest, do you find the actions I've described in this paragraph repugnant or not? (Whether you do or don't think that it was the actual reasoning behind the fees increase).

Enduro

donothoponpop wrote: »

You're right, there'll not be enough hours in the day for race, EGM, new constitution, AGM, and then talking about other matters in depth. It's great to see some of the ideas taking shape over on the IMRA forum though, there'll be lots for a new committee to mull over. Good to see the IMRA forum so active and what a great post by DO'C!.

Indeed it is great to see discussion on the forum again. Hopefully next year's committee will encourage more of it. I'll be going forward for the position of webmaster and if I get in its one thing I'll hope to influence the committee to do. It is totally underused as a resouce. Even in the last week some of the suggestions that have come forward as a result of the lively online debate have been fantastic.

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

T, I was at the AGM. I listened as I heard the explanations for what the intentions of the increase was. Were you there? You're certainly speaking like someone who didn't hear what the proposer's had to say, and the long discussion that ensued.

I was not at the AGM but in IMRA and involved with the debate at the time. The rise of 2 euro was not intended to price unwaged people out of IMRA as you srroneously suggested.

IMRA had no pressing cash requirements at the time. On the contary, Money was rolling into the bank account at a rate faster than it could be spent due, of course, to the increased numbers.

THe balance has not fluctuated up or down significantly since then

And for your information... the extra money WAS NOT originally intended to be used for travel fares for the international athletes. I actually put in an amendment to the effect that it should be (which was accepted), and thus it did in the end get used that way. But it most certainly wasn't the orginal intention at all. Again, it sounds like you weren't there.

It was originally intended for Juniors. It got used for both Juniors and international athletes.

As you can see, I was strongly involved in the debate, and have very clear memories, not just conjectures, about what was said.

The debate took place on the forum and at races, not just at the AGM.
The €2 fee hike did not price one runner out of IMRA. Infact you would do well to find a runner who was unemployed at the time.

You may have been "strongly" making the erroneous claim that a €2 euro price hike would price runners out of IMRA races. You may not have remembered what other people said.

How would raising the race entry fees fix the volunteering issue? How was raising the race fee to seen euro supposed to magically make people volunteer to help out at races?

I said that volunteering fixed the issue of overload for certain dedicated individuals.

Harder and fewer races was the solution for reducing numbers to lower the load, but volunteering soved it. The price increase was unrelated.

How could you possibly logically link race fees with volunteering? It was, and still is, completely unrelated. It was a different debate. It was an issue at the same time, but that doesn't mean the two were in any way linked.

You are correct the race fee increase was unrelated to volunteering but also to reducing partcipants in IMRA races.

I have stated quite clearly what I found to be morally repugnant. To recap, that is to try and tackle the issue of excess numbers turning up at races by trying to price the more cost-sensitive people out of running.
And then compounding this by refusing to provide lower race entry fees for the unwaged etc. Those actions to me are disgusting, no matter how hard working and likeable the people who put them forward are, or whether they are friends of mine or not. I have expressed my strong views on the matter on several occasions in public forum (in the real world) in the presence of those involved. Out of interest, do you find the actions I've described in this paragraph repugnant or not? (Whether you do or don't think that it was the actual reasoning behind the fees increase).

For the second time, please explain how a €2 increase from €5 to €7 could possibly price someone out, logically speaking?

You do not claim someone's actions are "morally repugnant" unless you have damn good cause to. Increasing a race fee for the first time in 5 year to €7 is not repugnant.

Enduro wrote: »

Indeed it is great to see discussion on the forum again. Hopefully next year's committee will encourage more of it. I'll be going forward for the position of webmaster and if I get in its one thing I'll hope to influence the committee to do. It is totally underused as a resouce. Even in the last week some of the suggestions that have come forward as a result of the lively online debate have been fantastic.

Good to see lively debate of-course. Well done on the committee and Diarmuid for bringing the netiquette into play. (Dont underestimate your own contribution to the forums fortunes this year though)

Enduro

I was not at the AGM but in IMRA and involved with the debate at the time. The rise of 2 euro was not intended to price unwaged people out of IMRA as you srroneously suggested.

Then, frankly, you're just guessing, to put it politely. I've made perfectly clear that I'm reffering to the explanations delivered in person at the AGM by the proposers of the motion. I heard it myself there (as did plenty of other people). I don't see how you think you can contradict it when you weren't even there.

THe balance has not fluctuated up or down significantly since then

Are you deliberately missing the point here. Here is another straight question for you. If the balance was healthy, and IMRA had no requirement for addtional funding, what exactly do you think the intention of raising the fees was?

It was originally intended for Juniors. It got used for both Juniors and international athletes.

Thank you for repeating what I said! :rolleyes:

The €2 fee hike did not price one runner out of IMRA. Infact you would do well to find a runner who was unemployed at the time.

I didn't confine my comments, or my suggestion at the time to the unemployed. I said unwaged. Try reading more slowly and carefully. Can you give an explanation of why the suggestion to give a reduced rate to the unwaged was refused?? Especially when you think it would have had no real effect on the finances of the organisation.

You may have been "strongly" making the erroneous claim that a €2 euro price hike would price runners out of IMRA races. You may not have remembered what other people said.

Yet again you are misrepresenting what I said, whether deliberately or not. I made no claim about the fee increase pricing runners out of the race. I referred to what other people said was their intention behind the fees increase. It's not my claim. As to my memories of the AGM, I was there... I heard it. I remember it very clearly because of its nastiness. You weren't there. We know for an absolute fact that you can't remember it, since you weren't there to hear it in the first place. Argueing that memories are wrong when you weren't even there is an interesting debating tactic, to say the least.

You do not claim someone's actions are "morally repugnant" unless you have damn good cause to. Increasing a race fee for the first time in 5 year to €7 is not repugnant.

It would be really nice if you could debate what I said rather than what you want me to have said. I didn't say that the fee increase was morally repugnant. I said that the intentions and reasoning behind it was. Do you understand this, or are you ignoring it deliberately?

So can you answer the direct question I put to you. Lets try and abstract it for you to help you understand...

If rugby club, say, decided it had too many people turning up to its training sessions and the coaching resources were too stretched, and the club president decided that the solution was to up the membership fees so that the working class riff-raff would be priced out of the club would that be morally repugnant to you? Yes or No?

Dont underestimate your own contribution to the forums fortunes this year though

Why thank you very much T

T runner

Enduro wrote: »

Then, frankly, you're just guessing, to put it politely. I've made perfectly clear that I'm reffering to the explanations delivered in person at the AGM by the proposers of the motion.

Im referring to the debate which took place on the forum beforehand. To the debate at races beforehand and to what the reasons the people backing the motion. I remember you blabbing on about moral repugnancy at the time over a 2 euro price hike. If you can show me the minutes I will believe you. You have a habit of talking a lot and not listening too much as I aluded to in my last post. Clearly the AGM did not take your claims seriously either

If the balance was healthy, and IMRA had no requirement for addtional funding, what exactly do you think the intention of raising the fees was?

For one Juniors as I have said for the 3rd time now. To cover the increasing expenditure on LL races possibly etc The committe looked at the accounts and decided that after 5 years a €2 euro increase was in order.

Thank you for repeating what I said! :rolleyes:

I didn't confine my comments, or my suggestion at the time to the unemployed. I said unwaged. Try reading more slowly and carefully. Can you give an explanation of why the suggestion to give a reduced rate to the unwaged was refused?? Especially when you think it would have had no real effect on the finances of the organisation.

If this actually happenned then it was IMRA in ite entirity who rejected your "amendment". Are you now accusing IMRA (its membership as represented at that AGM) of being morally repugnant?

I made no claim about the fee increase pricing runners out of the race. I referred to what other people said was their intention behind the fees increase. It's not my claim.

This is what you said. Look at the bold. You claimed that logically speaking "pricing out the unwaged was exactly the aim". So Im afraid it was your claim. When first a tangled web..... etc.

I can't speak for the people who proposed and supported the motion, but if I was to be logical about it I would say that if the idea was to price people out of doing races then giving the less well off reduced fees would be totally counterproductive. In fact, pricing out the unwaged was exactly the aim, logically speaking.

Can we have a breakdown of your logical argument please.

As to my memories of the AGM, I was there... I heard it. I remember it very clearly because of its nastiness.

I dont trust your "memories". You cant even remember your arguments from earlier in this thread.

You weren't there. We know for an absolute fact that you can't remember it, since you weren't there to hear it in the first place. Argueing that memories are wrong when you weren't even there is an interesting debating tactic, to say the least.

The debate is on the great resource that is the IMRA forum for one: no need for memories. Im not arguing that "memories" are wrong. Im arguing that the intention of the measly increase of €2 was NOT to price runners out of IMRA, it was neither a logicical

It would be really nice if you could debate what I said rather than what you want me to have said. I didn't say that the fee increase was morally repugnant. I said that the intentions and reasoning behind it was. Do you understand this, or are you ignoring it deliberately?

Your accusations of morally repugnancy are still falling on the same people.
I find your self righteous attitude nighly hypocritical. All of that year you participated in many, many IMRA races winning many prizes without lifting a finger to help the people you are now still slating 4 years later for an argument backed up by no logic only your own nasty memories. I find that morally repugnant.

Lets try and abstract it for you to help you understand...

Will you remember that because it was nasty.

If rugby club, say, decided it had too many people turning up to its training sessions and the coaching resources were too stretched, and the club president decided that the solution was to up the membership fees so that the working class riff-raff would be priced out of the club would that be morally repugnant to you? Yes or No?

First of all let us know what your basis is for deciding the club president wanted to price the working class out. Your claims on IMRAs intentions are erroneous and we wouldnt want to slate the club president unfairly.
Also we would need to know what the price increase was just to add "logic" to your claim. Let me know and Ill answer your question.

guapos

Well any news for us from the AGM? I wasnt able to make it myself but found the discussions here and on imra.ie very interesting and informative.

On another note is there a run up the Sugar Loaf around Christmas time?

Stark

It was decided to leave the setting of race fees in the hands of the committee.

donothoponpop

Stark wrote: »

It was decided to leave the setting of race fees in the hands of the committee.

Couldn't get out of college in time for Saturdays AGM, so I don't know the full list of new committee members, but well done to all the new Boardies who have been thus elevated!

Slogger Jogger

guapos wrote: »

Well any news for us from the AGM? I wasnt able to make it myself but found the discussions here and on imra.ie very interesting and informative.

On another note is there a run up the Sugar Loaf around Christmas time?

I couldn't stay for the AGM due to family commitments so I can't comment on the outcome of the various discussions.

As for the sugarloaf run... I hope so. Don't think its 100% decided yet one way or another, but should have clarity soon once the committee meets.

Enduro

3 boardsies on the committee now. Slogger (equipment), Dunebuggy (secretary), and myself (web).

AGM was done in record speed. EGM took 2 hours. I think all bar two of the constitution amendments passed, and then the new constitution itself passed. Discussion was lively and informative, and a lot of good work was done at the EGM.

Peterx

A terrible thing has happened!

When I saw an Enduro post I was expecting some fire and brimstone in T runners general direction but yea and behold, a mere 2 days on the IMRA committee and the other cheek is turned:D
I await with faint hope the the possibility of after midnight postings....

The new committee look to be a very capable and energetic bunch and we can look forward to many interesting races in the new year to come.

Joking aside the EGM went very well, plenty of probably unconstitutional and very practical alterations were made to both the draft document and most of the proposed amendments and in the final finish we have a shiny new constitution we can ignore, much like we did the old one..
The AGM was definitely a record, less then 20 minutes all told I think?

Congrats to all on the new committee - but considering where I'm writing - especially the Boardsies!