Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64

Thread: FRA Members ratio in races

  1. #11
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Llani Boy View Post
    Why should runners with no club affiliation benefit from insurance cover paid for by others?

    I would not want to stop non members running in FRA registered and permitted races but perhaps a levy of, say 2, be charged to cover them. This happens in some road/trail races and a cyclocross league I have occasionally ridden in.

    It might even encourage runners who do five or more races to join the FRA but still allow a casual runner to race.
    We already have different race entry fees in force as shown by the difference between pre-entry and pay on the day prices so a levy to cover insurance, landowner fees or whatever would not be too much to ask.
    This happens in Wales occasionally. I did a WFRA race last year where WFRA members paid 3 to enter and as a non-member I had to pay 10. They openly admitted it was to encourage membership.

    It worked by the way as I am now a WFRA member...!

  2. #12
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,078
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    Are you a member of the FRA?
    why do you wish to know? Does it make my posting any more or less relevant?
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  3. #13
    Admin brett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cononley
    Posts
    3,355
    Nope, I was asking Mr Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Llani Boy View Post
    If you are asking me,yes and the WFRA and EA.

  4. #14
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Travs View Post
    This happens in Wales occasionally. I did a WFRA race last year where WFRA members paid 3 to enter and as a non-member I had to pay 10. They openly admitted it was to encourage membership.

    It worked by the way as I am now a WFRA member...!
    Travs - I think WFRA is a completely independent organisation and secures it's own Insurance. UKA sees Welsh Athletics as the custodian of the rules of fell in Wales, although only a handful of fell events are run under WA. Similarly in Scotland with SHR.
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  5. #15
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,078
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    Nope, I was asking Mr Park
    I wonder what happened to Dr H Tool
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  6. #16
    Moderator noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mountains of Cheshire
    Posts
    5,428
    I'm offended by something that we all acknowledge isn't happening.

    But given this is just a talking shop...

    If we did take the argument to its logical conclusion that the FRA are dipping their toe into the waters of making non-FRA members contribute in some way...

    Don't road races have a similar thing today anyway? Where it's eg, 8 for affiliated runners and 10 for non-affiliated runners. I don't see a problem with this - other than I don't want to spend the extra 2.

    Adding 7 for Welsh races seems mighty cheeky. They obviously think Welsh races are oversubscribed!!
    No longer "resting"

  7. #17
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,078
    Quote Originally Posted by noel View Post
    I'm offended by something that we all acknowledge isn't happening.

    But given this is just a talking shop...

    If we did take the argument to its logical conclusion that the FRA are dipping their toe into the waters of making non-FRA members contribute in some way...

    Don't road races have a similar thing today anyway? Where it's eg, 8 for affiliated runners and 10 for non-affiliated runners. I don't see a problem with this - other than I don't want to spend the extra 2.

    Adding 7 for Welsh races seems mighty cheeky. They obviously think Welsh races are oversubscribed!!
    Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the FRA plan to add a (say) 2 levy to non FRA members.

    But it is clear there is some pressure from the FRA Membership who see the FRA as the Governing Body for fell in England to ensure that FRA members get the full member benefits and are concerned that at the moment non-FRA members get the same benefits.

    But to your specific point Noel, there is already a system in place that the FRA could link in to if it wanted to ensure only registered runners could compete - it's the EA system.
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  8. #18
    Moderator noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mountains of Cheshire
    Posts
    5,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
    But to your specific point Noel, there is already a system in place that the FRA could link in to if it wanted to ensure only registered runners could compete - it's the EA system.
    And how does this work? I don't typically do EA events.
    No longer "resting"

  9. #19
    Master Wheeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Monmouth
    Posts
    7,082
    At risk of digging up long buried discussions, back in the 80's and early 90's WFRA existed as a subcommittee of the FRA. Then devolution happened and with no notice to active participants, Welsh Athletics took over Mountain Running in Wales and demanded all runners to become WA members or have to pay a fee to enter Welsh Fell races.
    This strengthened the resolve of the WFRA which continued to organise and insure races under the FRA banner (even though it was by now just the eFRA) whilst not charging non members an additional fee. Many races continued to be under 5 to enter.

    That was now over 20 years ago and the old issue of fees etc is rearing its head again. Plus ca change!
    I am Kuno....

  10. #20
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,078
    Quote Originally Posted by noel View Post
    And how does this work? I don't typically do EA events.
    You want to call me? It might take a while and it might also be the case that some longer in the game than me might have a slightly different take on this or be able to add more.

    Going back in the day we had 3 areas in England that were part of the AAA. North of England Athletics Association, Midlands and South.
    Each club paid a registration to the North and 1 per member, which eventually became 2 in the mid OO's I think.
    That was the members affiliation and it was before IT really got in to this in a big way.

    After the failure of British Athletics and with the flow of money from Lottery, a reorg took place and we ended up around 2007 with UK Athletics, 4 National Associations of which England Athletics is relevant to us, and the old area changed to just competition providers and the affiliation system taken over by England Athletics and the other home nations.
    It was then set at a club fee of approx. 50 per year + 3 per athlete for EA around 2008.

    So in a few years the fees for a typical mid size club of 150 members went up from around 100 to 500. Hey but we got some nice emails trying to get us to attend track fixtures etc.

    So back to the levy, the 1 that morphed to 3.

    Road races used to apply for a permit. It was done through the area with County AA involvement. Registered athletes paid say 5 and unaffiliated the extra 2.
    That extra 2 was passed to the area by the RO so if a 300 runner race had 50 unattached/unregistered athletes 100 would go to the North.
    The North then used to redistribute some of that back to the Counties where the races were held.

    This circulated additional money from "guest" runners back to help cover costs of officials, officials training, course measurers etc... you could say supporting the volunteer side of the sport that is essential.

    But with the EA switch this circulation stopped. The revenue stream was centralised. And we have also see EA club registration rise - I think it's 100 as well as individual athlete registration which is I think at 17 now.

    So that mid size club that saw it's fee rise from 100 to 500 would now be around 1900.

    So the EA athlete registration system is a huge database and for competition purposes is used to ensure athletes are eligible.
    Some events demand EA registration or you cannot take part such as Track, Cross Country and road championships.
    Open road races allow "guests" ie non EA registered runners, but there is a 2 higher entry fee to pay (technically it's a discount for EA athletes)

    So if the FRA did ever want an affiliation scheme to help manage the races, keep on top of eligibility etc it would be feasible to use the EA system, as the other disciplines do.

    All clubs are EA affiliated anyway. The vast majority of clubs now automatically affiliate their members. It would require a rule proposal change to the UKA Rules committee and it would stop random guest runners coming along who'd maybe done a tough mudder and saw Three Shires as the next step in their adventure as that seem to be part of the problem they are concerned about.

    I apologise to those of a delicate disposition who might find this a bit unsettling
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •