BMFA SUBS 2024 ????

[Tim Flyer]

The annual BMFA subs are a very small price to pay when we consider they do so much for us. Everything from dealing with the expanding maze of regulations to promoting our hobby and insuring us, plus helping us run our clubs. I do not begrudge this subscription at all, and our club is firmly affiliated to them. 

The cost is only the same as a tank of fuel in a very small motor car. Considering the cost of models and what many spend on them  it is not expensive . 

 

[MattyB]

On 27/11/2023 at 16:06, kc said:

Whats Red Sea quote mean? 

I thought the SMAE originally intended to invest the money they had in the bank for any defence of aeromodelling  by buying land but instead the BMFA didn't buy land outright but just bought a lease on Buckminster.    When the lease expires what will we own?    I reckon that SMAE members thought that land would be bought where it was needed by members - near centres of population like London.

 

The BMFA tried to buy land, but when it became clear that the numbers involved were astronomical and they wouldn't get the mortgage needed they moved to renting. If the goal was a site of our own this was pragmatic solution, but whilst they the BMFA team have undoubtedly built an asset in terms of the facility (it's a very pleasant flying site I'll admit), from financial perspective it's definitely a liability.

 

The original proposals and financials have long since been removed from the BMFA site, but suffice to say large amounts of money have been sunk into the site that are not recoverable at the end of the lease, and as has been noted in this thread it's not yet breaking even. Despite being regularly quoted by BMFA team members it's still never been clear to me why renting it is supposed to improve the standing of model flying amongst the authorities that matter, either, but what do I know. Certainly it's difficult to see any positive influence the initiative has had based on the most recent two consultations we've been landed with. 

[MattyB]

On 27/11/2023 at 22:13, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

You are not subsidising them. Not one penny of the £42 you paid for your 2023 membership was used to subsidise them. However as I mentioned previously you have still benefitted indirectly, the BMFA didn't have to spend some of the pennies you paid to hire venues that we would have had to previously because we were able to use Buckminster. 

 

I get the second part about avoided costs and agree with that, and I am confident there is currently no direct opex subsidy from members subs. However, for as long as Buckminster's running costs are part funded by a "donation" from the insurer, I consider members are subsidising it's cost. The insurer is not a charity; maybe they get some tax benefits etc. for donating in this way, but the majority of that money has to be coming from the premiums ordinary members pay, so it remains an indirect subsidy.

 

I also have sympathy with those in this thread who are pointing out that large amounts of members fees were invested into the national centre initially and over the past few years to establish the centre. That reserve was not built up exclusively from donations for a national centre or bequethments, it came in part from surpluses built up in good years, and I don't remember the the proposals from the BMFA at the time ever denying that. AS a result no-one here should be criticising them for pointing out that members current and past have contributed to the establishment of the centre via past years subscriptions.  

 

On 27/11/2023 at 22:13, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

Buckminster has also proved very useful in promoting model aircraft flying and helping to put our sport in to the public eye. Something all model aircraft flyers benefit from. 

 

This was quoted repeatedly in the original presentations as a projected benefit, and it comes up regularly in posts on this site, but can we have an actual example of where this has made a tangible benefit to the wider BMFA membership? I've never actually seen anything more quantifiable than what you post above. 

 

On 27/11/2023 at 22:13, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

In years when the BMFA makes a surplus of over £10k, £10k will be transferred to the National Centre reserve. But only if there is a healthy surplus...

 

Based on the latest projections, it does not seem like a £10k surplus is likely in any of the next few years. With inflation as it is and membership decreasing, it is difficult to see the economics getting rosier for Buckminster or the BMFA in the foreseeable future, though I  hope I am wrong there and an economic upturn is around the corner that may help us out a bit. If not the BMFA are going to have to cut it's cloth somewhat differently as membership numbers fall (as per their own predictions).

 

On 27/11/2023 at 22:13, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

Clubs are not forced to have 100% BMFA membership, it is a choice they make to affiliate because they consider the benefits of affiliation are worth it. It's actually a bit of a no-brainer when you consider all the benefits that otherwise the club would have to pay for.

 

It's not the BMFA's fault, but affiliation to a national association is effectively mandatory for many (probably most) clubs now, as a huge number of clubs sites would not be legally flyable without an Article 16 authorisation. The crux for the BMFA and other national associations will come in 2026 if the CAA assume authority for deciding which sites can be legally flown under Article 16 (as the most recent consultation indicates they want to do). If it were to go anything like the US, a decent percentage of existing sites will be turned down for one reason or another, at which point those clubs and their members will definitely start asking whether BMFA membership and club affiliation is worthwhile. Hopefully we can collectively fight this regulatory over-reach at least to some extent, but if we are unsuccessful BMFA membership may drop off a cliff in 2026.

Edited December 5, 2023 by MattyB

[Peter Jenkins]

28 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

The BMFA tried to buy land, but when it became clear that the numbers involved were astronomical and they wouldn't get the mortgage needed they moved to renting. If the goal was a site of our own this was pragmatic solution, but whilst they the BMFA team have undoubtedly built an asset in terms of the facility (it's a very pleasant flying site I'll admit), from financial perspective it's definitely a liability.

 

The original proposals and financials have long since been removed from the BMFA site, but suffice to say large amounts of money have been sunk into the site that are not recoverable at the end of the lease, and as has been noted in this thread it's not yet breaking even. Despite being regularly quoted by BMFA team members it's still never been clear to me why renting it is supposed to improve the standing of model flying amongst the authorities that matter, either, but what do I know. Certainly it's difficult to see any positive influence the initiative has had based on the most recent two consultations we've been landed with. 

So, Matty, what do you know?  

 

If you are so clever, how come you never offered your expertise to the BMFA at the time but chose to snipe from the sidelines.  Just as you are doing now.

[MattyB]

12 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

So, Matty, what do you know?  

 

If you are so clever, how come you never offered your expertise to the BMFA at the time but chose to snipe from the sidelines.  Just as you are doing now.

 

That's a simple one - I didn't offer my help because (based on the numbers presented by the BMFA and the benefits projected) I didn't believe renting or buying a site  was the right thing to do at that time.  Whilst I've visited the site on a couple of occasions and fully acknowledge the team have built a very nice facility that is a great venue for events and competitions, my view hasn't changed, especially as the site does not yet break even and almost none of the investments made are recoverable. On that basis if you offered me the site today versus the money in the bank, I would choose the latter.

 

Why, given we are model flying association and it's a site designed for model flying? Because (as I'm 95% sure I posted at the time) those funds would have bought fair chunk of legal support to fight the ridiculous proposed regulations that (if passed) will affect every model flyer in this country hugely, not just those that currently benefit from Buckminster. This latest consultation has only reinforced that view - we've played along nicely filling out their forms and providing our feedback over a number of years now, but in almost all cases it has been ignored on the basis of ludicrous future scenarios where the skies are black with commercial drones, all supported by pseudo "facts" created to support the interests of the lobbying organisations. It will be an unpopular view, but I do now believe the time for playing along nicely is at an end. The only way I can see to defend our rights is by the national associations banding together, pooling resources and using legal channels to attempt to hold UK Gov and the CAA to account. It is not without risk and could absolutely still fail, but playing the game entirely according to the authorities rulebook is clearly not going to stave off RID in a form that (as proposed) is probably the highest cost and most invasive implementation proposed anywhere in the world.

 

PS - Any member of the BMFA is entitled to be supportive of the org as a whole without agreeing with every decision they make.  Your posts are always exhibit the tone of someone who believes that any member who does not agree with everything the BMFA does and every line in the articles of association is unsupportive of the org and has no right to comment. I do recognise the good that the BMFA does and continues to do, but I do have concerns the situation (both financial and regulatory) it finds itself in is unprecedented in it's history. If you don't want to see my views feel free to put me on your ignore list, but I am entitled to hold them and I'm not breaking any rules by sharing them here. 

[Peter Jenkins]

You forget that there are a lot of people who have donated to support the National Centre, some very generously.  This money is outside that from normal subs and is used to support the Centre while it gets going and to invest in providing improved facilities. As such, your argument is wrong in arguing that you would prefer the money rather than having the existing leasing arrangement.  The money does not belong to members for futile campaigns against central government which is how you would prefer it used.

 

You are quite right to say you are entitled to express your views.  So am I.  I have spent several years contributing to the BMFA both at Council, Area and Club level so I feel that those who keep urging the BMFA to do this or that but never offer to help are actually working against the best interests of the body of people who are the BMFA.  I'm all for having great ideas but the real issue is having those ideas put into practice.

If you aren't prepared to, or just don't have the time to, devote the time to dealing with major problems then carping from the sidelines does not reflect well on one.  This is particularly an issue when the facts being used to pursue a particular view are some way off reflecting the real situation.

[SIMON CRAGG]

Our club membership for 2024 has dropped again overall. We have gained a couple of members, but overall the trend has been down over the last few years, despite our best efforts.

To cover our costs, we had to increase our subs by £20 per head, this was before the BMFA increase.

Result?.

Not one whinge!.

OK, we are only a small club these days, but we have a lot of FUN, a great flying patch, warm club hut and shop, and appreciate the myriad of benefits (and hard work), the BMFA provides.

The membership are grateful for what we have got......long may it continue!

[MattyB]

37 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

You forget that there are a lot of people who have donated to support the National Centre, some very generously.  This money is outside that from normal subs and is used to support the Centre while it gets going and to invest in providing improved facilities. As such, your argument is wrong in arguing that you would prefer the money rather than having the existing leasing arrangement.  The money does not belong to members for futile campaigns against central government which is how you would prefer it used.

 

As per the first part of my post at the top of this page, I was talking about the £252k transferred from the  "General Development Reserve" in 2016 to fund the initial lease and development phases of the project as per @steve too's earlier post, not subsequent donations for ongoing opex:

 

 

Are you saying every penny of that reserve money was from donations and bequethments specifically for a national centre? That is not my recollection of the original proposal or the briefings given by Manny at the time, though I no longer have a copy and it is not available from any of the original links (perhaps you or Andy can provide one). Even so, I am 95% certain BMFA leadership were very open on this point and confirmed those were general reserves built up from a number of sources over many years, a percentage of which came from subs surpluses.

 

37 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

You are quite right to say you are entitled to express your views.  So am I.  I have spent several years contributing to the BMFA both at Council, Area and Club level so I feel that those who keep urging the BMFA to do this or that but never offer to help are actually working against the best interests of the body of people who are the BMFA.  I'm all for having great ideas but the real issue is having those ideas put into practice.

If you aren't prepared to, or just don't have the time to, devote the time to dealing with major problems then carping from the sidelines does not reflect well on one.  This is particularly an issue when the facts being used to pursue a particular view are some way off reflecting the real situation.

 

So to be clear, in your opinion BMFA members either have to volunteer to support and help with a project they don't happen to agree with, or are never allowed to exercise their right of free speech to express concerns about that project? There is nothing in between? All a bit Putin-esque isn't it?

 

PS - I have represented clubs at Area level in the past, and in the period immediately after the EGM I did try and get involved in the proposed review into the Articles of Association. I won't go into details here, but it pretty quickly became very clear that the org wasn't really serious about changing the status quo. On that basis I decided I'd to walk away and spend that time on my young kids and job instead.

Edited December 5, 2023 by MattyB

[steve too]

5 hours ago, MattyB said:

I get the second part about avoided costs and agree with that, and I am confident there is currently no direct opex subsidy from members subs.

 

The spinmeister carefully refers to 2023. He doesn't mention the four prior years where there was a direct opex subsidy.

 

It's difficult to work out precisely what Buckminster has cost the members. As you note, there is the business with the insurance broker, it is impossible to know how much of the permanent staffs' time is spend on Buckminster (I very much doubt if the the £5000 in the budget covers the Buckminster Manager's salary) and some of the general funds used to establish the Buckminster Reserve appear to have been returned.

[GrumpyGnome]

5 hours ago, MattyB said:

This was quoted repeatedly in the original presentations as a projected benefit, and it comes up regularly in posts on this site, but can we have an actual example of where this has made a tangible benefit to the wider BMFA membership? I've never actually seen anything more quantifiable than what you post above.

Well, the centre has been on at least three relatively mainstream tv programmes....... maybe this didn't result in an increase in members per se, but it may have lessened declining numbers.  Apparently, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".......

[GaryW]

1 hour ago, steve too said:

 

The spinmeister carefully refers to 2023. He doesn't mention the four prior years where there was a direct opex subsidy.

 

It's difficult to work out precisely what Buckminster has cost the members. As you note, there is the business with the insurance broker, it is impossible to know how much of the permanent staffs' time is spend on Buckminster (I very much doubt if the the £5000 in the budget covers the Buckminster Manager's salary) and some of the general funds used to establish the Buckminster Reserve appear to have been returned.

 

The increase in BMFA Subs are not solely based or centered around Buckminster unless i'm wrong and you know something I don't or the BMFA isn't telling us... So subs have gone up as have my clubs subs for 2024 and possibly the CAA Operators fee soon... So What????

As I've said in other previous posts and threads where people moan and whinge about increases, if you wanna carry on in the hobby as with any hobby that costs money to do there will be increases in costs and if you wanna carry on you either pay the price a hobby costs or you dont pay the amount it costs & give up its that simple

Edited December 5, 2023 by GaryWebb

[Peter Miller]

I see people bellyaches about a pretty small increase on the BMFA membership fee. This covers a very valuable insurance scheme.

I would love to hear their screams of total agony at the increase in their car insurance.  Perhaps those who say that they will give up model flying  will also give up driving??!!

[GaryW]

1 minute ago, Peter Miller said:

  Perhaps those who say that they will give up model flying  will also give up driving??!!

 

There may still be hope for them yet.......

[ken anderson.]

Thing is Peter...the ones in the forum who complain.....don't represent the total BMFA membership....in reality the rise is small compared to other increases going on....as you mentioned car insurance ☠️

Ken Anderson...ne...1 real world economics.

[Ron Gray]

6 hours ago, MattyB said:

those funds would have bought fair chunk of legal support to fight the ridiculous proposed regulations

The cost of mounting a legal battle would have far exceeded the amount of reserves we had and do you really think that it will make a difference or would have made a difference?

 

Whilst I will fight against the latest proposals I'm also resigned to the fact that changes will be made, including RID. I absolutely hate the idea that RID or worse NRID will be forced upon some of us (including me when I fly at areas other than my club's site) and I am at peace with my conscious for taking the course of action I will be taking when that time comes in 4 + years. 

 

The bottom line is we've got Buckminster, like it or not, and we've got an organisation (BMFA) who will do the best that they can to lessen the impact of future changes. Fees will go up but as Gary said above so have my own club's (I belong to 2) so I expect them to keep going up.

[GaryW]

23 minutes ago, Peter Miller said:

I see people bellyaches about a pretty small increase on the BMFA membership fee. This covers a very valuable insurance scheme.

I would love to hear their screams of total agony at the increase in their car insurance.  Perhaps those who say that they will give up model flying  will also give up driving??!!

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by GaryWebb

[steve too]

22 minutes ago, Peter Miller said:

I see people bellyaches about a pretty small increase on the BMFA membership fee.

 

18 minutes ago, ken anderson. said:

... real world economics.

 

The BMFA membership is dropping. The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by steve too

[Learner]

2 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

The BMFA membership is dropping. The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.

Off you go then!

[Ron Gray]

13 minutes ago, steve too said:

The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.

You pays your money and takes your choice. My car insurance is not the cheapest one I could get but I decided that I would pay the extra, my choice. Maybe you should try Comparetheflyingcarpet.com

Edited December 5, 2023 by Ron Gray

[David Elam]

4 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

 

The BMFA membership is dropping. The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.

 

Eleven years ago my club was involved in quite a long and expensive legal dispute. Without the BMFA our club would most likely have lost their flying site and quite possibly its very existance. I very much doubt any of these other smaller associations would have had the financial clout, or enthusiasm, to see that right prevailed. Yes, the other associations may well be cheaper but they will never provide the facilities, both administrative and physical that the BMFA can.

 

[leccyflyer]

32 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

 

The BMFA membership is dropping. The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.

 

The BMFA is the national body for model aeroplane flying. The other alternatives are not. They are representing niche interests in and around the hobby. Personally I regret BMFA chasing after increased member numbers by actively seeking a large involvement in promoting drones, as I believe that undermines their looking after my interests as a model aeroplane flyer, rather than a drone operator, but that is the decision that they made and I have to live with that. The LMA, FPVUK and other organisations are focussed on a particular segment of the hobby and do not necessarily have the interests of your average model aeroplane enthusiast at the front of their activities.

 

Most expensive doesn't come into it. Even if the difference were hundreds of pounds, rather than a tenner or two, it would be insignificant against the ongoing cost of participating in the hobby. For the sake of a 10-20 quid difference, I'd suggest that to those in the hobby that really ought not be a determinant of which body to provide their support to.

[steve too]

@David Elam@leccyflyer BMFA are running a deficit and their membership is forecast to drop at over 1000/year for the next few years (AGM financial presentation). How many years do you think that it will be before they are unable to support clubs having legal problems and represent the average model aeroplane enthusiast?

[Ron Gray]

12 minutes ago, steve too said:

How many years do you think that it will be before they are unable to support clubs having legal problems and represent the average model aeroplane enthusiast

A lot more than other organisations!

 

BTW are you a BMFA member and if so why?

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Well, the centre has been on at least three relatively mainstream tv programmes....... maybe this didn't result in an increase in members per se, but it may have lessened declining numbers.  Apparently, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".......

 

Yes, I've seen a few of those, but I'm pretty sure that filming would just have happened at another physical location had Buckminster not existed - after all, the BMFA has supported that kind of stuff prior to the national centre. In terms of value, I was thinking more about whether we are using the centre to host the CAA, show them the value of the hobby up close and win over a few hearts and minds (maybe - you can but dream...!). Has that been happening on a regular basis?

 

1 hour ago, Peter Miller said:

I see people bellyaches about a pretty small increase on the BMFA membership fee. This covers a very valuable insurance scheme.

I would love to hear their screams of total agony at the increase in their car insurance.  Perhaps those who say that they will give up model flying  will also give up driving??!!

 

1 hour ago, ken anderson. said:

Thing is Peter...the ones in the forum who complain.....don't represent the total BMFA membership....in reality the rise is small compared to other increases going on....as you mentioned car insurance ☠️

 

I am not too worried about this years increase, and agree it is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. It's the next 5-6 years that is more concerning based on the BMFA's own projections of costs and falling membership. The numbers complaining now may be small, but that won't remain the case if membership were to dip significantly in 2026 if RID comes in and fees have to increase to fill the gap.

 

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

The cost of mounting a legal battle would have far exceeded the amount of reserves we had and do you really think that it will make a difference or would have made a difference?

 

Whilst I will fight against the latest proposals I'm also resigned to the fact that changes will be made, including RID. I absolutely hate the idea that RID or worse NRID will be forced upon some of us (including me when I fly at areas other than my club's site) and I am at peace with my conscious for taking the course of action I will be taking when that time comes in 4 + years. 

 

Re: the Legal battle, I am not advocating we should have taken this path before now - playing the regulators game was the right thing to do, as not trying to show partnership with the CAA early on would have been counter-productive. As to whether it would work now, I don't honestly know, but even if the chances are slim that still feels better than playing along via the current pathway where the CAA and UK Gov make up the rules and data to suit whatever measure they wish to propose. Ultimately though you are right - that money is gone, we can't get it back, so any legal challenge is financially untenable unless a monster donor comes along out of the blue. 

 

44 minutes ago, steve too said:

The BMFA membership is dropping. The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.

 

I agree country members could vote with their feet and go to an LMA or FPV UK, but I suspect the rise this year won't be sufficient to trigger that at any great scale. From a club perspective, many are reliant on the Article 16 authorisation to continue operating. If clubs are to de-affiliate from the BMFA they would have to win over members that would be required, do all the admin, then join one of the other associations straight away, all within a few weeks. That is an awful lot of admin and faff for committee members to do in a short period, so I doubt the vast majority of clubs will even consider it at this point unless there is a huge clamour from members (which seems unlikely). 

[steve too]

6 minutes ago, MattyB said:

From a club perspective, many are reliant on the Article 16 authorisation to continue operating.

 

All the associations have article 16 authorisations and last time I looked there wasn't a lot of difference between them.

 

6 minutes ago, MattyB said:

If clubs are to de-affiliate from the BMFA they would have to win over members that would be required, do all the admin, then join one of the other associations straight away, all within a few weeks. 

 

I'm not expecting mass disaffiliations this year, but it will be interesting to look at numbers in a few years time.