BMFA News

[MattyB]

Posted by Percy Verance on 23/05/2016 14:25:13:

Good post Matty. Couldn't have put it better myself...... I wouldn't necessarily be bothered about opposing the NFC, as in shouting and waving a big banner etc. No, I'd just turn my back and walk away. There's no way I'm going to fund something which cannot possibly offer anything solidly tangible to the vast majority of BMFA members, or the hobby as a whole. I've said it before. If a select few dozen are so hell bent on this idea, then let them re-mortgage their houses to pay for it.........

You seem to be thinking what I'm thinking......... I wonder if we have the same breakfast cereal?

I hope not - I generally have gin on mine to get me through the day...

[John Privett]

Posted by MattyB on 23/05/2016 01:47:23:

Country members are even less likely to stay members in such a scenario - after all they had no vote and don't normally fly at an affiliated club site, so almost their only direct benefit of membership is insurance.

Is that actually the case though? Looking at my own club, "country" membership is the biggest single category of BMFA membership. 32% of our club members are BMFA country members, 28% have their BMFA membership through our club, the remainder have their BMFA membership through one of 28 other clubs.

So my view of a "country" BMFA member is of somebody who flies at a (or more than one) BMFA-affiliated club but, for whatever reason, arranges their own BMFA membership rather that having it done by a club. I accept that some country BMFA members may not fly at club sites, but I wonder what proportion that really is?

[ChrisB]

Our club of 90 has about 10 affiliated members, mostly the committee and ex committee, the rest are country members, with one or two being members of other clubs. The reason we don't all affiliate is purely for logistical reasons. As the membership Sec, its a challenge to mug everyone for their subs,never mind get it all in and sorted in time for renewal. At the moment i'd rather leave it as is. the reality is that the BMFA still has 90 members, as does the club.

Surely, if we want our minority hobby/sport to survive in what are increasingly challenging times when it comes to land and the nanny state we should stick together in as larger group as possible?

We all enjoy flying, whether it be RC, Control Line, Free Flight and any element within those categories and more. The only way we will continue to enjoy our flying is with the support of the authorities, with whom the BMFA and other national associations have a good relationship. The more members there are, the better we are seen by outside bodies.

It always amazes me to think that on a Saturday afternoon, there are hundreds of football matches taking place and, at many of the venues all the aeromodellers in the UK, be it BMFA or otherwise could fit into just ONE of the many stadia.

I contacted several of my local councils a few years ago and asked if they would entertain the creation of a facility for use by my old club. They said that demand was not high enough and the main sports of Football, Rugby, Tennis, Athletics and Cycling were the main game in town and we'd have to find a private landowner.

The other thing is national trends. Since the Olympics, Cycling has boomed. When rowing was the in thing, rowing clubs boomed, even Strictly Come Dancing resulted in a boom in dancing clubs. With these booms came money, publicity and public acceptance, tolerance and understanding.

Stick together and be as one voice, welcome and educate beginners and embrace change and maybe even spend a whole extra pound or even two on memberships etc. Otherwise we won't last very long and the enjoyment we all have in our flying will be a distant memory.

CB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Chris,

I have a lot of sympathy with your point of view. Yes if course it would be better to speak with one voice. But the question that is bothering an increasing number of us is:

One voice at ANY cost? No matter what BMFA do? No matter how little they are in touch with what we want? No matter how much they engage in the self-righteous view that we are not to be trusted with responsible decisions and that such matters should be left to the sensible few (see above for an example)? No matter what grandiose and unrealistic schemes that are of no possible benefit to 90%+ of the membership they push through?

Despite all that one voice is still better?

Well, for me and some others, its becoming a very close run thing. If I were at the top at BMFA I'd be very, very worried that what looks like a growing number of members can seriously entertain such thoughts and I'd be looking to try to see what we were doing that was so upsetting these people. Will BMFA do that? I very much doubt it. Firstly I doubt that most of those at the top even realise that we are not happy - they are that disengaged with us. Secondly even if they did realise - we are not members of "the few" - ergo our views don't matter, BMFA has encountered upstarts like us before and seen them off without changing anything, they believe they will this time as well. But maybe what they are overlooking is that everything has a breaking point Chris - even the BMFA membership's willingness to be treated like surfs.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 24/05/2016 08:37:48

[Colin Leighfield]

ChrisB, I think that you have expressed it perfectly. A lot of us are getting on a bit, but if we care about more than just our own opportunity to build and fly models for a few more years but the continuity of this great hobby and encouraging interest, we need to be organised and united, whatever our personal differences are. Fragmenting into small self-interest groups is a road to nowhere. We are never going to agree on everything but so what? That's how it should be.

I've had a look at the LMA web-site and it makes specific references to BMFA in a constructive way, no evidence there it sees itself as a competitor. If I ever have a go at a large model, I will join it as well. Perhaps BMFA and LMA could consider some joint membership opportunity with some discount for doing that, it would help everyone. Better united.

[cymaz]

When I joined this forum ,years ago, the bmfa never really got a mention. Apart from Nationals. Insurance and the news rag.

It seems to me since the NFC debate has started the bmfa has managed to start to fragment the membership. People are worried that the cost will sink the bmfa.

To the credit of Manny Williams, and I will sing his praise here, I asked for some publicity and help.

Our small club near St Austell was asked to put on a static display at a Steam Fair near Wadebridge this bank holiday

He replied to my call for help by sending a large bmfa banner ( for which the bmfa will pay the return courier cost), pens leaflets, badges, lapel mascots. A huge box.

And the point of this rambling story....THIS is what the bmfa should be spending the money on. Promoting any club that needs help. Promoting local interested groups that's would like to see model aircraft flown safely. Helping the grass routes and new members get interested and start model flying.

How can spending a small fortune on one field in the depth of God knows where promote modelling across the local club areas.

Has anyone added up the total acreage of all the affiliated clubs across the country ?? Surely more than 43 acres than the NFC site.

Edited By cymaz on 24/05/2016 09:05:37

[MattyB]

I don't disagree with the sentiment that in general we are "better together", but like BEB I don't think that is something worth paying any price for, either monetarily or in terms of accepting a governance model that is no longer fit for purpose. More importantly neither does the average BMFA member - rightly or wrongly most perceive the sole benefit of joining as the insurance needed for them to fly at their local patch. That means if they don't like the way the BMFA is being led or managed and the effect it is having on their membership fees they will look elsewhere for an alternative.

At the end of the day I suspect this will come down to basic economics. If the BMFA can deliver this project without significant rises in subs there will probably be little change in membership numbers or governance, at least until the approaching demographic cliff starts to really take effect in 5-10 years time. Mind you, if they can manage to create an NFC from existing finding there are still likely to be disappointed people as it won't be much more than a flying field with a few huts at the edge!

On the other hand if subs have to rise to any great degree then many of those who were ambivalent at the outset may become anti-NFC. At that point anything could happen - membership will drop, existing clubs may look to disaffiliate to go with alternative insurance providers, and there will be some fairly difficult AGMs and EGMs for the BMFA LT to weather. There may also be a re-examination of how we got to this point by those who were not so actively engaged in the run up to the EGM; that could build pressure on the Council to look again at governance or even revisit the decision to proceed.

All supposition I know, but what we can say with 100% confidence is that the cost of a product or service always has an effect on the number of consumers prepared to pay for it. Balancing that equation is now the role of the BMFA leadership as they begin the work of delivering the NFC.

Edited By MattyB on 24/05/2016 09:51:53

[GONZO]

Considering what is going on elsewhere with possible regulation/registration etc. could be the BMFA are looking to a future where to legally fly models(mix and match the following) you have to be a registered member of the national body, be insured, belong to an affiliated club and only fly at registered club sites. Thus, you pay the membership fee or don't fly.

As an aside, anyone notice the similarities between this and the EU. An elite, BMFA council members, believe they know best and what the members should have and they are the ones to implement it. With the EU its the commissioners(unelected, appointed and with close links/ties to commercial/financial and industrial interests) who have the real power. The MEP's are little more than window dressing to give an appearance of democracy. Don't want to hijack the thread with any more, there's plenty of info out there on how the EU works for those that wish to educate themselves.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Some breaking away to other insurers will still benefit from input with CAA by BMFA, LMA on behalf of flyers so they'll not be left out on a limb, no one's proposing leaving any association to save a few quid, no one do's not recognise there's strength in numbers, and no one is not themselves engaged in promoting interest, what we do is what promotes the interest not the fact that we belong to a body. It's just a few on a forum chatting.

Vote for NFC was won, regardless of any opinions about the how n why, so get on with it for me, less ambitious project appeals more to me, bit by bit sounds safer. I don't care if we support comps in the least, what I do care about is if that's all we do. I'm sick of hearing how much we benefit from comps, we benefit far more from the work done by the grass roots, they provide the finance and the members. And there's a lot of work in there done by volunteers Peter, it's your go to answer in any BMFA thread and it's tiresome and contradictory. Clubs I've been a member of has over the years sent quite a few members the F3A's way also some scale comp flyers and LMA members, that's where your members come from, same with lads flying on a slope somewhere or any other discipline, grass roots supplies your comp flyers. Give something back.

All the benefits we get from being together is constantly chucked in the face of anyone questioning anything, the comp flyers get all these benefits as well..and a bit more. So why keep lecturing us on the point ?

Convince your members the "few" have a vision for us ALL and it's not just a desperate reaction to the way things have been changing re the MOD and the need to secure somewhere to hold the annual finals for ...yes you've guessed it the comps. ?? (yep I know it's not big enough for the Nats as we know it but they could do it over a period maybe)

Stand by your word when you give it, if the new members are charged £1 as an admin charge, i'll be asking them to send there own fee off the first year to justify it, petty ? Yes, but me or the few ?

Last agenda is composed of belt tightening and a proposal for an increase in fees, plus a request for a handout, no mention as yet over the clubs losing votes as a result of people taking the option of buying online or Country members having no say in what was an important vote ?

John

[Colin Leighfield]

Why don't we just give people the time to come up with a detailed proposal before we start condemning everything? No one is going to support a project that is a financial drag on the association. The starting point should be that it is self-financing after a specified limited time. There is no doubt that a well thought-through business plan will include income generation and there are a number of ways of doing that.

I don't see this as megalomania, any management team worth its' salt should continually review proposals designed to enhance and ensure the future of the activity in the long term. A national centre properly run can add substance to BMFA beyond just being a centralised facility and that is important in securing the regard and respect of those in authority that decide whether we exist or not. It could also be a great opportunity for co-ordination with schools as part of a programme to support education and generate continuing interest from youngsters.

Some might say this is all "pie in the sky", but so what? Let's have some new thinking. If I t it isn't well conceived it won't happen anyway. I don'tknow how many years I've got left in this game and some might well say that I'm past it already. However, I want to see it continue and flourish.

The comparisons with the EU are fair enough. However the difference is that no one running BMFA stands to get wealthy out of it. My involvement with the EU has shown me a bunch of leaders and EU/Commission employees who allow themselves to pay reduced income tax, about half the UK rate on an average salary, give themselves automatic salary band elevations every two years without any measure of performance, have final salary pension schemes based on 70% of income and all kinds of other perks that you wouldn't believe. We pay for all of this nonsense and it stinks. BMFA can't be compared with that. (John, just editing this after seeing yours. You speak from experience and I respect that).

 

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 24/05/2016 10:46:31

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Here you go, an update

[Colin Leighfield]

Thank you John, that reads well enough to me.

[Andy Meade]

Looks good, and I'm glad they are going ahead with it. Even if it was the other end of the country, I'd still be glad that it was happening. Well done guys.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Update looks promising to me.

[MattyB]

Based on that the target still seems entirely based around securing a venue for future comps and national championships with little in it for the average member, but let's wait and see. This very intriguing though...

"The potential to develop the site into something much more than just a flying area is a key attraction of the location. Important in your assessment of this opportunity is that the acquisition of the site and the essential groundworks and structural refurbishments are all within the current financial capabilities of the Society. But you will be pleased to learn that the landowners recognise the value to themselves and the local communities of our presence and are committed to inputting sizeable funds to assist in the work required."

I will be very interested to see if the terms of the lease are revealed in detail - one can only assume there must be a way for the landowner to see a return on this investment...

[bert baker]

I duno, my reading must be getting worse, I tried to read the BMFA Link that john kindly put on here and having read it,

I thought they ment Purchase not lease, and it said see the council meeting notes to find location of the proposed site,why not put where the proposed site is rather than say sw of barkston,

I looked at the council notes, and haing spent to much time behind bike shed smoking, now given up looking to find the place.

Is it too early for a post code

Edited By bert baker on 24/05/2016 11:53:42

[bert baker]

Lets hope sheep ain't part of the plan, or crop cutting, like last Natts, smothered one end of the camp site in dust.

Some folks don't like change, some times it's for the better,

I have only been going to the Natts for about six years now, Always have enjoied it and a shame its no go for this year .

I wonder if it would be that all the BMFA structure offices ect would locate at the site,thus reduce clerical costs of other building leases

Edited By bert baker on 24/05/2016 12:17:30

[cymaz]

It depends what the other activities are. If they are that committed to it..I can't stop them. All I can do is voice my opinions. I'm happy to see that the land owner is up for it....until there is descent and complaints about noise from the other users. Then what ?

The last paragraph "failed in its commitment to the development and futherance of model flying if we cannot make this work"

I cannot see how the NFC will help to do this for fliers in Scotland, deepest Wales or Lands End...blah blah blah. 

Still I will shut up now as I've had my rant and at the risk of repeating myself

Edited By cymaz on 24/05/2016 12:59:14

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by bert baker on 24/05/2016 12:16:28:

I wonder if it would be that all the BMFA structure offices ect would locate at the site,thus reduce clerical costs of other building leases

The BMFA have stated several times that there is no plan to relocate the administration from Leicester.

I would be more comfortable if there was more flesh on the bones of the plan for development of the hobby and sustainability of the centre. Simply stating, as the Chairman has today, that "the potential to develop the site into something much more than just a flying area" and that "the Society will have failed in its commitment to the development and furtherance of model flying if we cannot make this work" doesn't fill me with confidence that the centre is anything more than a vanity project and facility for a minority of members - but if it's shown to be potentially self-financing or of benefit to the general membership, then I will gladly embrace the concept.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cabbage Man]

Totally agree with the concern that this is unlikely to do anything to help grassroots flyers. Its all about the preserving the competitions. Who in there right mind is going to drive hours JUST to fly.

I would far rather see money spent on renting regional sites across the uk than a single site 4 hours from me.

With the exception of sports funded by government funds such as archery, tennis etc, who else has a national centre? If the intention is to share the site with other users, why not hand this over to a commercial interest who takes the risk?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Let's bear in mind that the (enfranchised) membership was given the opportunity to endorse this rather vaguely defined project in a properly called and run EGM. My feeling is that apathy, rather than general approval (based on my conversations with other club flyers) won the day, but the fact remains that the executive were given the go-ahead to commit an unspecified amount to any site they identified as suitable. Let's just be thankful that a lease option is being considered!

There are many in the BMFA who do work hard on the behalf of model flyers. There's little tangible to lose if things go pear shaped - our personal liability is limited to our remaining unused subscriptions, but I'd be very concerned for our negotiations with the CAA, NATS, local authorities and special interest groups (Nimbys!) should the organisation get into trouble over this matter. That's why I felt the need to respond to Manny's call for comments, to attend the EGM on behalf of my club and even (FWIW) post my opinions here!

Perhaps we should all try to get a little more involved - all clubs are entitled to send representatives to area meetings - does yours?

[Colin Leighfield]

Percy, why do you think that the main source of income would be from members using the site? There are different ways of generating cash and the object should be to create opportunities, not lumber everyone with a responsibility they don't want.

I'm not sure that your land data base idea is completely practical because it would need to be managed and continuously up-dated. There's a lot of work in doing that. Who's going to control the use? Even so, I don't see why the national centre idea would prevent that anyway.

As far as renting sites is concerned, how many? Ten? One hundred? Where should they be? Who will manage them? What is that going to cost and they still won't be in places that suit everybody anyway. I can certainly see the pitfalls in that one and the potential for money down the drain.

I'm happy to wait and see a properly investigated and costed business plan that is beneficial for the future of our hobby and at least cost-neutral because it is possible. If I think what comes out of this is rubbish I will say so, but it certainly doesn't need to be. My expectations are higher than that. In the meantime I will give the benefit of the doubt.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Was talk of dog shows, gymkhanas, computer fairs, pet shows and the like as an area for revenues if I remember it right, also talk of concert by these lads QOTSA.

John