I am not sure whether we should or not support overseas teams, but I would like to argue against the reasoning here - mainly that you claim there is no benefit to individual members.
If you used that argument then we would not be paying tax. Or in a club sense, as a private owner I should pay less as I don't use the club aircraft, and as a member who use club aircraft should pay more, and those who don't drink should pay less for the liquor license, and ... The world just does not work like this. If it did then once you get sick you would have to pay a fortune for health, when you get old you may not get enough money to live... Funding via these models works only because the amount is distributed across all members. Finally I would like to add that support of an overseas team encourages people from overseas to fly in Australia - this in turn increases the members flying in Australia - bringing money in for the GFA. I believe that removing that support for overseas teams (and in deed other things such as support for Form 2 training, instructor training etc) would reduce the numbers further and therefore increase the overall costs. Funding an association like the GFA is a careful balance - adding or removing support for an individual item can have larger impacts that are not only hard to see but even harder to quantify. Now... a controversial one - how about reducing the money spent on the magazine, since that is a large portion of our money - is this a good/bad idea - I don't know, I can't see or quantify it, but it is expensive. Scott ----- "Kym" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear all, > I have been watching this topic with interest as I wrote to the GFA on > behalf of Renmark Gliding Club committee for clarification when the > (one sentence) letter was sent out "explaining" the increases. > Regardless of whether AEF charges should increase or not, the annual > membership cost is still too high when compared with RAAus and I agree > with Guy that the GFA should look at cost reductions! I agree that a > computerised system would be an excellent start to this. > The area of cost saving which the RGC committee wanted to pick on was > the money paid towards the support of the Australian competitors in > International events. > Quote from RGC letter to GFA: "It is the strong opinion of our > committee that, given the current declining membership numbers and > increasing costs, it is unfortunately no longer appropriate to > continue supporting those who desire to fly internationally. We > understand that the amount paid is insignificant compared to the costs > incurred, however we believe that the costs in the GFA need to be > reduced for the purpose of lowering membership fees in order to retain > members." > We received a nice reply including: "Funding of the International > Teams has been the subject of considerable debate over the years, the > current GFA policy is to continue supporting our teams." > I'd still like to see this policy changed as I see no benefit to > individual GFA members being forced (via subs) to assist funding > people to compete overseas. > Regards, > Kym Z. > > Barry Kruyssen wrote: > > > > > > > AEF’s are a main source of revenue for some clubs in both dollars and > attracting new members. This is a blatant grab for club dollars by > GFA, taking revenue straight out of the clubs. > > > > In small clubs the cost of operating will most likely be in the red > and are being propped up by donations from members (buying fuel for > winch, food for fund raising BQ, etc out of their own pocket). Now > their revenue is cut more even more. I thought that GFA was here to > support it’s members and encourage gliding, not to make a profit out > of our sport. > > > > In today’s economy every organisation has to reduce cost, yes even > GFA, if we are to survive. > > > > So what is going to happen in the future? Fees are going up, therefore > membership will decline, cost per member will go up, thus fees go up, > more members leave and the vicious circle has begun. > > > > The answer is to keep reducing costs per member to attract growth this > is simple business logic. > > > > Don’t get me wrong, I think that GFA staff and board members are > helpful and doing a job which many of us could not do (or would not > do). And a lot of it at their cost. > > > > But we still need turn around spending by GFA. The answer is > definitely not to keep slugging the members and clubs. > > > > Barry Kruyssen > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check > or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > -- > ------------------------- www.riverland.net.au/~kym > ------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
