FRA Members ratio in races

[noel]

Yes it can. Didn't we already agree that it would encourage membership?

[Witton Park]

Yes it can. Didn't we already agree that it would encourage membership?

I think that membership of a club does that Noel, and that's why I mentioned in a previous post that if this is the way the FRA wants to go, it should be down the route of the existing method, which is based on EA club members and one we almost all subscribe to already.

[fozzy]

I try and look at this from the point of view of FRA members having to pay levies/extra to enter other organisations events - LDWA events come to mind, many now seem to have more runners than walkers. I try and do 2 or 3 a year, usually over the winter as early season preparation. At present someone who is an LDWA member but not FRA can still enter our events with no levy - I'd prefer this to remain the case but perhaps negotiate with the LDWA (and other similar bodies) to allow FRA members to enter their events without an extra charge?..... 'You are welcome to enter our events at no extra charge, would you like to consider allowing our members to do the same with your events?'
It would be nice to be a member of lots of organisations/clubs - but where do you draw the line? BMC, CTC, FRA, MBA, BCU, ISKGA, EA, LDWA, BT (British Tri) - the list goes on, plus many have local branches or clubs with separate individual membership fees on top of that. If you do many different things and want to join all it could get very expensive, especially if some of your events/outings are occasional things. I try to keep it simple and am a life member of the FRA (cheaper - its paid for itself), a member of CFR (a fell only club), in the CTC (primarily for the insurance) and pay the extra levies for things like BCU qualifications or triathlon entries.

Some (but not all) LDWA events cost more if you are not an LDWA member:

e.g. https://www.sientries.co.uk/event.ph...&event_id=5766 and https://www.sientries.co.uk/event.ph...&event_id=5839 (organised by a former chair of the FRA no less)

[Madeleine]

Some (but not all) LDWA events cost more if you are not an LDWA member:

e.g. https://www.sientries.co.uk/event.ph...&event_id=5766 and https://www.sientries.co.uk/event.ph...&event_id=5839 (organised by a former chair of the FRA no less)

For me it's about encouraging people to join the LDWA. The difference is the cost of membership (if you pay by direct debit). I will be giving the differential to the national organisation as part of funding raising so we can upgrade our website. The LDWA would have got the money via their membership fee if they had joined. Shame they haven't joined as they will miss out on a shed load of benefits....

[ba-ba]

I'm curious: if this is about safety, there must be data about the number of people banned for not carrying kit and if they were FRA members or not. FRA members are just as liable, I think, to not carry kit than members. Unfortunately enforcing kit regs is extremely patchy and maybe stricter enforcement might lead to better compliance, between both members and non-members.

In the last 2 years all disciplinary actions have been against non-FRA members.
There is also some evidence (though where it is I am not too sure) that membership of an organisation results in greater adherence/awareness of the rules. Obviously being an FRA member doesn't automatically make you someone worth trusting on the fells - some FRA members I know I definitely wouldn't trust!
I stated these two points in my earlier tl:dr post.

Stricter enforcement is in place at some races (see for example Edale Skyline for kit; Trigger for pre-race vetting) and maybe these incidences of best practise could be spread further. However there's always people intent that they know best (e.g. I believe an experienced Spine racer was DQ'd this year)

Personally? For a smallish evening race I wouldn't alter entry fees. If I organised a Lakeland Classic or the two races organised above, that are more arduous, have become more 'bucket list' type events or are well subscribed, I would. I think there's more room for nuance here than there is in the GPS debate.

[fozzy]

For me it's about encouraging people to join the LDWA. The difference is the cost of membership (if you pay by direct debit). I will be giving the differential to the national organisation as part of funding raising so we can upgrade our website. The LDWA would have got the money via their membership fee if they had joined. Shame they haven't joined as they will miss out on a shed load of benefits....

Absolutely - my post wasn't meant as a criticism, but instead as a point that most organisations (inc the LDWA!) generally have preferential entry fees for their members at their events.

The balancing act comes between how much is too much for the casual participant (i.e. one whom only does say 3 events per year) without forcing them to become a member of the organisation (unless they wish to), but enough so that joining the organisation makes sense.

We've had the same debate for AIRE events. At present, we don't charge any different for local events, but we have a £2 surcharge (actually as with UKA races, it's a £2 discount for BOF members) for regional and national events (the old level C and B) if you aren't a BOF member (if you're a member of an affiliated club, you're automatically a BOF member). To do major (e.g. JK, British champs)/international events, I think you have to be a BOF member to enter.

[Witton Park]

In the last 2 years all disciplinary actions have been against non-FRA members.

But what was their status? EA members? WFRA, SHR? or unattached?

We aren't known for our fell running at Blackburn (especially me ) but we do have a few regulars and I doubt half of them are FRA members, but they know the regs, and that comes from passing on of information, going out on recces, training runs, new runners coming to races with experienced runners.

They are all registered with EA. They pay their £17 a year now for their competition license and while you don't need that to race on the fells at the moment you do need it to count in team competition.

I don't advocate this, but if it is felt there needs to be a greater control there is a system of registration there with a national database, access for ROs and the FRA and they could just add a request for the EA number on the entry form and make it a requirement of entry.
Then you know the runners are paid up members of an affiliated athletics club and you cut out the prospect of the tough mudder brigade taking part on a whim.

[Witton Park]

Absolutely - my post wasn't meant as a criticism, but instead as a point that most organisations (inc the LDWA!) generally have preferential entry fees for their members at their events.

The balancing act comes between how much is too much for the casual participant (i.e. one whom only does say 3 events per year) without forcing them to become a member of the organisation (unless they wish to), but enough so that joining the organisation makes sense.

We've had the same debate for AIRE events. At present, we don't charge any different for local events, but we have a £2 surcharge (actually as with UKA races, it's a £2 discount for BOF members) for regional and national events (the old level C and B) if you aren't a BOF member (if you're a member of an affiliated club, you're automatically a BOF member). To do major (e.g. JK, British champs)/international events, I think you have to be a BOF member to enter.

The LDWA is not attached to UKA/EA. It is an independent organisation.

UKA/EA also have preferential entry for affiliated clubs/runners. UKA are the Governing Body.

This preferential entry can be for affiliated club only, for affiliated runners only, some allow unaffiliated runners but allow a discount to affiliated ones.

The best example I can give is the Trail Running Association. Like the FRA it has come in to the UKA fold and events are now under UKA Rules, with the TRA designated a National Committee.

TRA events are available to EA affiliated runners (in England) at a discount, and for any TRA members that are not in the club system, they can run at a discount as well.

For the purposes of race entry they treat the EA and TRA members equal.

and my concern is that the FRA will be treating the EA and FRA runners different, which may well be what they want, what the members want, but I think will ultimately lead to divergence and perhaps eventually FRA going back independent.

I think I've said enough now, I've made my point. I don't intend to post again on the matter, although I can't guarantee someone smoking me out

[ba-ba]

WP - Here's a few relevant paragraphs from the summary of the recent RO meetings. I hope the entire summary will be made available on the FRA website at some point (though as it's not a GM/committee meeting I assume it doesn't have to be)

Introduction
FRA membership stands at around 7,600. There are many people who compete in fell races regularly (and have done for many years) without ever contributing directly to the FRA. Additionally, the FRA has no means to communicate with those people, which is a concern given that anecdotal evidence suggests strongly that non-members are more likely to fail to obey the FRA’s key rules for fair competition and safety.
Aspiration
The FRA would like to increase the percentage of people competing in fell races who are members of the FRA. It is important to stress that we do not wish to increase the number of fell race participants; the sport is healthy and the fells are already creaking under weight of numbers (e.g. the access problems discussed above).
Path into fell running
Historically, most people came into fell running through friends or clubs. Now there is a significant proportion of fell racers who come to the sport through social media. This brings a number of risks, since many people just search for the “longest” or “hardest” fell race when they have no suitable experience, or look at the distance/climb statistics with no understanding of factors such as terrain, navigation or self-reliance. For example, last year two people turned up to run Langdale Horseshoe as their first fell race (in road trainers!).

As explained above, the FRA is almost entirely funded by the subscriptions of its 7,600 members. Non-members gain all the benefits of fell races without contributing directly to the FRA. It is important that the FRA provides appropriate benefits to people who choose to join the FRA and support the sport.
Incentives to join the FRA
In years gone by, the FRA Handbook was a major “member benefit” of the FRA: it was the one and only place to find a list of all fell races with full race details. Now this information is available on the FRA website (and elsewhere), so runners are no longer as motivated to join the FRA for this reason. Of course we would like to imagine that everyone participating in FRA races would join the FRA to support the sport and its governance, but the reality is that many people need to see a personal benefit before they will join.

Discrimination against England Athletics members
Some ROs asked why people who are members of England Athletics (EA) but not the FRA should pay the same higher entry fee for a fell race as a completely unaffiliated and unattached athlete. They pointed out that because insurance is provided through UK Athletics (UKA), such people are already contributing to the FRA’s race insurance via their club subscription. In fact, FRA members contribute to the UKA insurance via both their UKA-affiliated club subscription and their FRA membership, since the FRA itself affiliates to UKA. The EA “registration” fee enables them to run road, cross-country and track & field disciplines within the sport, while FRA membership enables us to support fell running.
A similar query was raised by a club member of a multi-discipline club whose club championship includes three FRA races organised by the club. He queried why his club members should have to pay more than other club members to enter those races. We feel that this epitomises a problem discussed elsewhere in these notes, which is that many runners do not understand the special nature of fell running and that fell running is distinct from cross-country or trail running. Fell running is administrated entirely separately from other disciplines and we feel it is reasonable for such runners who are not FRA members to contribute directly to fell running. Equivalently, an unattached FRA member entering the same races (and therefore independently rather than for the club championship) would have to pay more (as a levy to England Athletics) to enter the non-FRA races.

We found that race organisers at the recent meetings were almost entirely supportive, often strongly, of the principle of differential entry fees. There remain some open questions such as whether differential fees are compulsory or optional and whether the extra cost to a non-member should be a flat fee, dependent on race type or variable at the ROs’ discretion. The FRA will continue to liaise with ROs on this matter throughout 2020 but at present the consensus is clearly in favour of introducing at least the option of differing member/non-member prices for 2021.

Personally I would prefer them introducing the option of a levy as opposed to blanket use.
I find some of the EA section needs a bit of work, but in summary the FRA does have costs that EA membership only does not cover

sorry for the tl:dr!

[Witton Park]

It seems it's happening then.

I've also been taken off the RO's email list as I only receive info by the back door.

I wonder what the criteria is for managing the RO's mailing list. It probably includes conformance