Proposed Changes to Club Competition licences.

GlennaMaddy

From http://www.cyclingireland.ie/Home/News/AGM-First-Notice.aspx

"The club competition fee covers participation in the member’s own club’s events only, to participate in other non-open events (e.g., a league run by another club, Province or Commission) a restricted competition licence must be taken out."

Not sure how this applies to jointly run leagues like Orwell/IRC/Tiernans/Lucan, but it could mean an extra 30 euro on top of the club licence fee for some.

Personally, I'm in favour.

Chips Lovell

Is that a new rule? I can't find reference the older rule about club competition licences on the site.

I doubt if it will effect inter-club leagues since they're jointly organised by the clubs concerned rather than by any one club.

I see they're also proposing to phase out day licences:

With the increase in club competition fees it is intended to provide a voucher whereby club competition licence holders can try a limited number (two) of open races, this will facilitate the elimination of one-day licences. The voucher would cover the current €10 one-day licence charge applicable to Cycling Ireland members, the participant would be liable, as is the current case, for the competition entry fee. The club competition fee covers participation in the member’s own club’s events only, to participate in other non-open events (e.g., a league run by another club, Province or Commission) a restricted competition licence must be taken out;

Raam

Does that mean that someone who is not a club member and who does not hold an open race license cannot race at all?

Chips Lovell

Raam wrote: »

Does that mean that someone who is not a club member and who does not hold an open race license cannot race at all?

In theory no, but in practice yes. You could be an unnattached member of CI who buys a club competition licence, but nobody will since they'd only be allowed do two races.

Raam

We need a Venn diagram or something.

Beasty

I think we need morana to clarify a few things for us, as it appears some of the licence categories are a bit confusing

It says the restricted licence is for track/off-road only then says you need one for road racing at another club!

I'm also curious as to how track racing fits in - will a club or IVCA licence still do, or will a minimum of restricted licence be required?

xz

........It's all another money racket!!!

CheGuedara

xz wrote: »

........It's all another money racket!!!

I also notice the intention to hit up the three groups of licence holders (primarily leisure riders holding introductory, cycling members or club competition licences) that C.I. have previously acknowledged at last years AGM as contributing the greatest numbers over the past few years for an extra fiver next year.

That's not right, nothing equitable about it at all. Either sting all members for the extra cash or none and definitely not those members who see comparatively little of their membership put back into the aspect of cycling they participate in.

If the excuse is to cover insurance costs then that is something that affects all members and increases should affect all members.

Cookie_Monster

Is that 1 day bit for races only, or would it affect sportives also?

Leroy42

Sorry, haven't been a member of CI for years, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

The introductionary licence, according to the CI website is " This covers you while you are out training, on club spins, and while participating in leisure tours.".

Does this cover sportives? A since this is only for new members would the non competition licence cover the same from year 2?

Thanks

Pat Kavanagh

This sentence is a bit confusing:

The club competition fee covers participation in the member’s own club’s events only, to participate in other non-open events (e.g., a league run by another club, Province or Commission) a restricted competition licence must be taken out;

It would be clearer if it read like this:

The club competition fee covers participation in the member’s own club’s events only.
To participate in other non-open events (e.g., a league run by another club, Province or Commission) a restricted competition licence must be taken out

'It is the intention to implement a 10% surcharge on licences not processed online.' - this is a bit rich as many of us, especiall those unattached, couldn't manage the on-line 'system' (not due to our collective stupidity I'm sure).

'That the club sponsorship fee is removed as it is a penalty on clubs who have used the initiative to raise funds' - this is good

Esroh

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, haven't been a member of CI for years, so apologies if this is a stupid question.

The introductionary licence, according to the CI website is " This covers you while you are out training, on club spins, and while participating in leisure tours.".

Does this cover sportives? A since this is only for new members would the non competition licence cover the same from year 2?

Thanks

It covers Sportives which are Leisure Tours in CI language and yes Non-Competition is what you get in year 2.

Beasty

xz wrote: »

........It's all another money racket!!!

I think that's a bit unfair. Unless you believe they actually waste money, you need to bear in mind Cycling Ireland will be facing the same restrictions on public spending as in other areas, and to provide the sort of facilities they do (including for example the new indoor track) they have to find funding from a number of sources, including membership and racing licence fees

I've looked at the accounts they've just published and they don't appear to be running much of a surplus at all, and the cash they do have seems pretty much committed to various aspects of the sport

Pat Kavanagh

Beasty wrote: »

I think that's a bit unfair. Unless you believe they actually waste money, you need to bear in mind Cycling Ireland will be facing the same restrictions on public spending as in other areas, and to provide the sort of facilities they do (including for example the new indoor track) they have to find funding from a number of sources, including membership and racing licence fees

I've looked at the accounts they've just published and they don't appear to be running much of a surplus at all, and the cash they do have seems pretty much committed to various aspects of the sport

What's the story with the 'new indoor track'?

xz

Beasty wrote: »

I think that's a bit unfair. Unless you believe they actually waste money, you need to bear in mind Cycling Ireland will be facing the same restrictions on public spending as in other areas, and to provide the sort of facilities they do (including for example the new indoor track) they have to find funding from a number of sources, including membership and racing licence fees

I've looked at the accounts they've just published and they don't appear to be running much of a surplus at all, and the cash they do have seems pretty much committed to various aspects of the sport

look at che guedaras post, and you will see, from his and my point of view, that it's UNFAIR, on us holding club competition,introductory or cycling member licences, to be hit with a hike, at least people who hold racing licences, can win prize money (A4 excepted), and get something back, so why not hit them also. It's not just CI who are doing this, in General, we are being asked to pay more for services when we have less income coming in.I don't mind paying an increase for a license, as long as it's across the board, and not just hit the majority license holders. You have to bear in mind, that the public in general have restrictions also these days on their spending too.

GlennaMaddy

Pat Kavanagh wrote: »

What's the story with the 'new indoor track'?

it's a misprint, probably meant the new indoor tacx?;)

Beasty

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

it's a misprint, probably meant the new indoor tacx?;)

Come to think about it, maybe I should get another ...

The story of the indoor track is, however, here

ednwireland

CI has seen a big rise in their sportive riders (from their newsletter )

To date there is a 17% increase in membership of Cycling Ireland in 2011 with still more than four months left in the year, an impressive statistic which came on the back of an extraordinary 40% increase in membership in 2010.

There are no less 4892 new members of Cycling Ireland this year of which 57% have non-competition licences, a six per cent rise on the non racing figure for 2010.

Of the new members who joined this year 72% are on non racing licences, confirming the belief that leisure cycling under the moniker of touring cycling, sportives or randonee events, is currently the largest growth area of interest for Irish cyclists.

so by raising these licences they look they have decided this is a cash source (i have a club competition licence but did one TT this year, the local club TT's dont really suit as i generally finish work too late to get to them)

CheGuedara

ednwireland wrote: »

so by raising these licences they look they have decided this is a cash source

Looks like the bare faced truth of it doesn't it?!

Chips Lovell

Insurance costs going up from €93k in 2010 to €140k in 2011 is pretty hefty. I'd like to see CI elaborate a little more on it. For example, if the cost of insuring leisure events has gone up, the increase would make perfect sense.

Also, if they're phasing out day licences, that's one revenue stream that has to be replaced.

Murph100

Just from looking at the prices since 2008, I think CI has been exceptionally fair and amazing value.

As for the increase in Intro & Non Comp, FFS its only a bloody FIVER !!! Its hardly in line with huge increase in leisure cyclists, who are still afforded the same insurance as those who are racing.

It would be VERY interesting to see the breakdown on insurance claims over the various licenses.

CheGuedara

But there was a big increase in what they consider to be leisure groups (introductory (I), cycling members (CM) and club competition (CC) licence holders) between '09 and '10 and there was a large reduction in the cost of their insurance (110K to 96K).

Now to see it apparently shoot up 47K for '11 and in any way insinuate it follows on the back of just a 6% rise in leisure cycling membership (about 511* riders) is ridiculous. This more than certainly has more to do with the wider economic issues of the day than cycling popularity and expecting the primarily leisure group of cyclists, who get comparatively little investment into their aspect of the sport despite their contribution to the coffers to cover the increase is wrong.

Edit: The actual text of the CI document reads as The rationale for these increases is primarily the need to cover the base costs in serving members - these surely by their nature are base costs affecting ALL members not just those on I, CM and CC licences)

43% of the membership hold competition licences and (presumably) participate in racing, which is better funded and arguably comes with increased risk of accident and injury (I have no figures to prove a greater number of crashes/insurance claims and resulting pay outs arise from racing than leisure events but it stands to reason given the different nature of the events).

IMHO there's no reason why this group should not also have to shoulder the increased cost of insurance. The cost of the increase on each licence is not significant but the inequity of how it might be applied is.

If it's just a bloody fiver (FFS) then everyone should have no problem paying it, eh?


*Using their own numbers:
4892 (2011 membership) = 2010 membership + 17%
This 17% = ~711 new members in 2011 ((4892/117)*17)
72% of these new licences are non-competition (leisure) licences = 511 new members for 2011 and a total of 2788 leisure licence holders (4892*0.57)
This also equates to 200 new race licence holders for the year out of a total of 2103 race licence holders.

pprendeville

just sent CI an email with this link. want tosee ifprices are going up for next year.

ednwireland

Murph100 wrote: »

Just from looking at the prices since 2008, I think CI has been exceptionally fair and amazing value.

As for the increase in Intro & Non Comp, FFS its only a bloody FIVER !!! Its hardly in line with huge increase in leisure cyclists, who are still afforded the same insurance as those who are racing.

It would be VERY interesting to see the breakdown on insurance claims over the various licenses.

its just the principle i like to see organisations explain why otherwise it just looks like " we can make some more money here", believe i've sat in enough agm's with people argueing about a fiver increase in membership charges

i'd also like to see a specific breakdown of what various CI licences cover as it was clear as mud last time i looked

guess i should go to the agm (not gonna happen btw)

its only a fiver, thats a 9% on club competitiion licence

by way of example insurance costs alone have increased from €93k in 2010 to €140k in 2011;

this isnt good enough if there is a shorfall in funding fine, but it needs a better explanation than that, there seems to be an 85k deficit on the previous year
flicking through the financial statement the biggest increase seems to have been in salaries from 09 to 10

the only insurance premiums mentioned seemed to have gonedown from 110k to 96k

anyway thats just a quick glance havent got time for any more

CheGuedara

As an aside to the whole licence issue - I do welcome the C.I. move to get rid of the Club sponsorship fee.

I would imagine many Clubs would fall into the same or similar category as the Chain Gang where there isn't well funding formal sponsorship agreement and more a case of informal patronage that works to support the running of a club event (or similar) earning the patron(s) a place on Club kit in exchange for their assistance.

Not having to factor the loss a chunk of this support in paying a fee will mean that more will be available to inject into a Club and contribute to it's development, something I think everyone will welcome.

Chips Lovell

ednwireland wrote: »

flicking through the financial statement the biggest increase seems to have been in salaries from 09 to 10

Employee numbers increased by 50 per cent. Salaries increased by 46 per cent. So pretty much in line. Its not like they're paying themselves more or anything.

Chips Lovell

If you abolish day licences, you've got to make that revenue up from somewhere. Full Competition licence holders weren't the ones buying them.

If you're a club competition licence holder, you essentially get two free day licences, which is worth €20, for the extra €5 you pay.

Anyhow, without a fuller breakdown of costs and an explanation from CI of their motivations, speculating like this is kind of pointless.

CheGuedara

Sounds like the solution to this aspect of the licence issues is as simple as don't abolish the one day licence, but stipulate that those holding a club competition licence are compelled to upgrade to a restricted or full competition licence after two open or non-club races.

Additionally that would also continue to provide a route for leisure riders on introductory or cycling members licences looking to step up and test the waters of road racing before having to commit to a restricted or full competition licence (lets face it, the planned changes make the club competition largely pointless unless you're happy to just be involved in your own club league).

pprendeville

Can you clarify what €30 extra you are talking about (didn't read anything on CI, had just quoted first post)? There has been an increase of only a fiver on three licence types – intro, non comp and club competition. These licences are already very good value as despite a huge increase in members we must cater for a huge increase in spend for Cycling Ireland. Cost of insurance has risen substantially due to a large rise in claims made, and there is the need for extra staff and resources to accommodate the huge surge in membership..

However, the best arena for suggestions to Cycling Ireland is at the AGM as this is where decisions will be made, as these fees are only proposed fees.

Regards,

Heather Boyle

CheGuedara

That only explains there's an increase in overall costs but still go near to explaining why the non-competitive 57% of licence holders are looking at a planned increase in licence fees and the competitive 43% aren't.

kenmc

CheGuedara wrote: »

That only explains there's an increase in overall costs but still go near to explaining why the non-competitive 57% of licence holders are looking at a planned increase in licence fees and the competitive 43% aren't.

Perhaps there has been an increase in the number of claims coming from the non-competitive section whereas the claims have remained static in the competitive section?

CheGuedara

kenmc wrote: »

Perhaps there has been an increase in the number of claims coming from the non-competitive section whereas the claims have remained static in the competitive section?

Guess they'll have to be able to answer that and other questions on Nov 20th!

GlennaMaddy

>didn't read anything on CI, had just quoted first post

Let's say you're a current club competition licence holder from Orwell (perish the thought :eek:) and raced in the Swords league last year, you'll be expected to upgrade to a restricted competition licence next year under these proposals, that's a 30 quid difference.

GlennaMaddy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Is that a new rule? I can't find reference the older rule about club competition licences on the site.

Stuff regularly disappears off the site as soon as something else appears on the front page.

GlennaMaddy

Murph100 wrote: »

Just from looking at the prices since 2008, I think CI has been exceptionally fair and amazing value.

Every year I feel like I'm not getting much for my CI full licence fee, but on race day when I pay my tenner feel like I'm getting value for money.

If I wasn't open or club racing, and just doing sportives, I don't think I'd bother with CI at all.

ROK ON

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

Every year I feel like I'm not getting much for my CI full licence fee, but on race day when I pay my tenner feel like I'm getting value for money.

If I wasn't open or club racing, and just doing sportives, I don't think I'd bother with CI at all.

The thing about doing sportives is that without CI license you are forced to buy a 1 day license at a tenner. However this in itself seems to be farcical at least or a scam at most, in that a one day license for a non competitive event is meant to cost 10% of the cost of entering the event?

Also, why one needs a one day license for an event at all is bizarre. The two largest sportives in the country (WW200 and ROK) are not run by CI and do not require a license. I have done many sportives run by cycling clubs where I have never been asked for a license. Who decides whether you need a license (and thus insurance) or not? Very little consistency.

Diarmuid

CheGuedara wrote: »

IMHO there's no reason why this group should not also have to shoulder the increased cost of insurance. The cost of the increase on each licence is not significant but the inequity of how it might be applied is.

Maybe in previous years one category of licence was shouldering a greater burden of the cost and they are re-balancing it?

CheGuedara

ROK ON wrote: »

The thing about doing sportives is that without CI license you are forced to buy a 1 day license at a tenner. However this in itself seems to be farcical at least or a scam at most, in that a one day license for a non competitive event is meant to cost 10% of the cost of entering the event?

Actually that's wrong, any leisure event should be priced for non-C.I. members and then C.I. registered members given a 10% or greater discount to avoid the organisers paying a fee per non-C.I. participant.

The non-C.I. participants are covered under event insurance as guest participants and payment for a day licence is not required, though they do have to sign into a day licence sheet.

Anyone asked to pay €10 for a day licence at a sportif should strongly question this.

Diarmuid wrote: »

Maybe in previous years one category of licence was shouldering a greater burden of the cost and they are re-balancing it?

Again this will have to be clearly demonstrated at the AGM if the proposed fee changes are to be accepted

Pat Kavanagh

CheGuedara wrote: »

Sounds like the solution to this aspect of the licence issues is as simple as don't abolish the one day licence, but stipulate that those holding a club competition licence are compelled to upgrade to a restricted or full competition licence after two open or non-club races

And who would to administer such a system (which would be quite cumbersone to adminsiter) - volunteers or CI office staff, or some mixture of both??

Things need to be simpler and not more complicated for those who run events and adminiser the lisencing system.

manwithaplan

I hope this doesn't put off non-Swords members participating in our club league. They make the thing more competitive and contribute a few quid to the club. I suspect most of the non-Swords people have full competition licences but some may not.

blorg

ROK ON wrote: »

The thing about doing sportives is that without CI license you are forced to buy a 1 day license at a tenner. However this in itself seems to be farcical at least or a scam at most, in that a one day license for a non competitive event is meant to cost 10% of the cost of entering the event?

Also, why one needs a one day license for an event at all is bizarre. The two largest sportives in the country (WW200 and ROK) are not run by CI and do not require a license. I have done many sportives run by cycling clubs where I have never been asked for a license. Who decides whether you need a license (and thus insurance) or not? Very little consistency.

It is up to the organiser, as to whether they want to organise their own insurance or use CI's. If the latter, one day license, as pointed out this should not be a tenner any more (used to be, maybe some organisers unaware of the change.)

RobFowl

blorg wrote: »

It is up to the organiser, as to whether they want to organise their own insurance or use CI's. If the latter, one day license, as pointed out this should not be a tenner any more (used to be, maybe some organisers unaware of the change.)

Jaesus Blorg you've been over there so long you'll get "slitty eyes";)

ednwireland

RobFowl wrote: »

Jaesus Blorg you've been over there so long you'll get "slitty eyes";)

hope your never planning to run for political office !

morana

Some info on proposed membership fees for 2012

http://cyclingireland.ie/getattachment/922e5da4-8ddb-4cae-8e03-d3eb5adf112f/2012_Proposed_Fees.aspx

Basically full comp stays the same, intro, noncomp and club comp is increased by €5.

Captain Havoc

Is that €60 for club comp correct or did someone hit the six instead of the nine?

xz

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Is that €60 for club comp correct or did someone hit the six instead of the nine?

Yes its correct, €60 for a member of a CI affilliated club and €90 for an unattached rider, but why an unnattached rider would go for a club comp license is anyones guess

C3PO

I'm really amazed that CI have the brass neck to charge a 10% surcharge for not using their online solution ..... Personally I think I should receive a 20% discount for the arseing around I've put up with on their disgraceful website! IMHO opinion it is typical of the arrogance that they've displayed around this issue!

morana

xz wrote: »

Yes its correct, €60 for a member of a CI affilliated club and €90 for an unattached rider, but why an unnattached rider would go for a club comp license is anyones guess

believe it or not some unattached members do club leagues!

RobFowl

I'm biased but think the fee structure is very fair and good value..

Especially considering the grant CI gets from the sports council has been slashed (strangely enough by about the same as one B Ahern got for secretarial support since he got the boot).

C3PO

RobFowl wrote: »

I'm biased but think the fee structure is very fair and good value..

I agree entirely - I've got great value for the €120 I spent this year on a "full" licence but that bloody website really makes my blood boil!!

cdaly_

I see an 'Overseas Authorisation' fee of €20. Does this mean my current 'Introductory' (and next year 'Non-competition') license does not cover me when touring abroad?