Overview:
Pilots to pay an annual fee which will enable them to use the 4 primary Southern California sites (Kagel, Crestline/Marshall, Elsinore, Santa Barbara) without paying a day use fee each visit. This fee does not grant the pilot full membership to each club. The pilot’s loyalty and primary involvement, be it financial or otherwise, remains with his/her own club but each club benefits from this newly encouraged inter-club participation.
Benefits:
Encourages pilots to visit/support other sites.
Inter-club relationship development.
Individual Club and Inter-club financial support.
Promote competitive rivalry between clubs.
Establish funds for site preservation and inter-club activities.
Strength in numbers (From the movie Gladiator).
Structure:
Each willing participant pays a set yearly fee to an elected inter-club secretary who maintains and distribute the funds as per a pre-determined schedule.
Example:
$75.00 Yearly multi-site fee.
20% is divided among each of the four clubs.
50% is pooled for site preservation and used based on need – to be determined.
30% is pooled for inter-club activities. Parties, Comps, Fly-ins, etc.
If 100 people can be encouraged to do this each year:
$3750.00 – Site preservation fund.
$1500.00 – Per club to do with as they see fit.
$2250.00 – For fly-ins, comps, parties, etc.
I do not presume to have any idea of how this would be set up legally but I do think because there would be an “inter-club� pool of funds that there would be a need for some type of “inter-club� committee to make final decisions regarding the funds.
I don’t know how many people would start making the drive to other sites more than they already do but I think this would encourage it. It may just be that pilots are encourage to donate $75.00 per year to a fund that would preserve, encourage, and promote hang gliding in Southern California.
I also think the idea of inter-club parties where pilots get to know pilots from other clubs is a good idea – I have really enjoyed meeting other hang glider pilots from around the world and it certainly keeps things interesting.
Think about how much more fun a bigger (and better funded) inter-club Christmas Party could be.
This may also encourge more people to contribute at the inter-club level at road clean-up parties, erosion prevention projects, road maintenance projects, etc.
This is just an idea to address the multi-membership talk. I think that some type of multi-club pass is a great idea but I don’t think I need a full membership to the CSS.
Multi-site
Moderator: Chip
-
Lynn McLaughlin
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:08 pm
One of the immediate benefits of this idea would be that our UNgathered SHGA day-use fees would no longer be lost revenue!
Also, this idea obviously helps sites in greater need of support: Elsinore and SB.
I like the idea of inter-club/regional comps and this idea would help finance it.
One way to to kick this off would be for SHGA to host a comp/party for our So Cal clubs. We could have a booth for new members to join at a discount (as outlined in Chris' post). Each Club would host an aspect of the days events (example: SHGA host fishbowl comp; CSS host BBQ...) We would hold our first annual Interclub meeting where site updates would be presented by each club.
Now Reality: This would require energy and drive of a few people willing to follow this through to a successful end.
Also, this idea obviously helps sites in greater need of support: Elsinore and SB.
I like the idea of inter-club/regional comps and this idea would help finance it.
One way to to kick this off would be for SHGA to host a comp/party for our So Cal clubs. We could have a booth for new members to join at a discount (as outlined in Chris' post). Each Club would host an aspect of the days events (example: SHGA host fishbowl comp; CSS host BBQ...) We would hold our first annual Interclub meeting where site updates would be presented by each club.
Now Reality: This would require energy and drive of a few people willing to follow this through to a successful end.
Sounds complicated to me, and I never get this sort of money thinking.
If you want to encourage interclub association, start by inviting all pilots to fly Kagel for free, as guests of SHGA. I have never understood chasing people down for $5, which we rarely do anyhow. The important thing is that they register and get a site briefing and that new contacts are made and relationships formed.
Chip has recently proposed a Socal comp which would bring the clubs together and promote interaction:
http://shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=505
If you want to encourage interclub association, start by inviting all pilots to fly Kagel for free, as guests of SHGA. I have never understood chasing people down for $5, which we rarely do anyhow. The important thing is that they register and get a site briefing and that new contacts are made and relationships formed.
Chip has recently proposed a Socal comp which would bring the clubs together and promote interaction:
http://shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=505
Multi-Site
I think this has merit. Perhaps we should float it to measure interest at the club and then interest at the other sites. Bottom line is that the primary site should not loose any revenue and the associated sites should gain some revenue.
The plan has some administration overhead. To keep this low and avoid politics I think that money flows and right of use should be all settled ahead of time and be simple.
To avoid politics money should not be pooled. Money should be spent as each site sees fit.
Downsides need to be considered. If successful, this plan will in effect increase membership. I am not sure everyone was on the same page on that idea.
No one likes a crowded site. I don't think anyone would be happy if the skies were filled with people who paid a fraction of what the local members paid to fly the site. How do we keep use/over use in control?
No, we will not be able to put a fake Pterodactyl to scare paragliders away.
The plan has some administration overhead. To keep this low and avoid politics I think that money flows and right of use should be all settled ahead of time and be simple.
To avoid politics money should not be pooled. Money should be spent as each site sees fit.
Downsides need to be considered. If successful, this plan will in effect increase membership. I am not sure everyone was on the same page on that idea.
No one likes a crowded site. I don't think anyone would be happy if the skies were filled with people who paid a fraction of what the local members paid to fly the site. How do we keep use/over use in control?
No, we will not be able to put a fake Pterodactyl to scare paragliders away.
Policy and reality sometimes don't match
5 bucks doesn't keep anyone away. Neither does not even collecting that. I don't know how many visiting pilots we have but I wouldn't say it is a bunch. So, despite encouraging visits we have none.
I would hope that if we amend this policy that well, it would actually work. We would actually get increased usage.
Which goes to your point,
You also see posts like this from JBBenson
Those are the two known opinions on this point. As a club, it would be good if we know what the majority of members want and if there are any other strongly felt positions that differ from these two opposing ones.
I would hope that if we amend this policy that well, it would actually work. We would actually get increased usage.
Which goes to your point,
You can see this "increasing membership equals power" point made in many posts.Over use? To have strength in numbers you need numbers. Our $5 fee isn't designed to keep people away.
You also see posts like this from JBBenson
Maybe some members don't want more members.Why? The issue of how many members there should be is pretty important. It drives alot of other decisions. Do we need more members or do we need more money?
Those are the two known opinions on this point. As a club, it would be good if we know what the majority of members want and if there are any other strongly felt positions that differ from these two opposing ones.
-
JT
Some thoughts on what's been said already...
This multi-site pass is generating a lot of interest, so far. Some ideas and things to consider, not necessarily my opinion:
Rather than muck up the finances of two or more organizations how about a pass/donation that provides access but is split evenly between organizations and is collected separately?
A member pays for his home site, whatever the dues and pays separately, say $25/year, for the multi-pass to use the away sites. If a member thinks s/he may spend more than 5 days flying at Crestline, buy the pass. For those who just want to provide a little more support to flying as a whole, it isn't an exhorbitant donation.
I'm not sure if Chris meant $75 for the pass to include Sylmar or in addition to the $60 already paid. Clarification, Chris? Your outline was was an excellent start for this topic, by the way.
I detected an undercurrent in many of these postings. I think many of our members realize that this is a worthy cause if only as justification to put a little more funds into keeping all the sites mentioned alive, even if they never fly there and at least loosely connecting the Southern California pilots in a larger organization.
The clubs can negotiate an equitable division of the funds collected; maybe 20% to the home site and the rest evenly divided by the away sites. Everyone gets a little help and no one pays that much to fly at seldom visited sites. Restrictions to avoid abuse may be required. And there has to be agreement about site regs for users, ie, must be USHPA current.
Problems:
We are not and will not be particularly PG friendly. So be careful what we ask for - isn't the CSS area big on PG members?
I've been told that Elsinore pilots are a different breed and don't care to travel to Sylmar because of all our rules. I don't know how true that is or how that affects this proposition. I do think that, eventually, Elsinore is lost unless things really change, ie, somone buys ten acres and donates them to a club for use. I've heard this from people (not pilots) living nearby who see the development in the area.
Abusers/exclusions? for sites that don't have a club or at least no membership fee. I don't think this is that much of a worry. Most of these clubs and the members are separate because of distance and to an extent, site preference. But again, the point is to add members to all the clubs' roster and those few that would fly extensively at away sites don't usually pay anything now, so we're still ahead if they go multi-pass.
Next?
Rather than muck up the finances of two or more organizations how about a pass/donation that provides access but is split evenly between organizations and is collected separately?
A member pays for his home site, whatever the dues and pays separately, say $25/year, for the multi-pass to use the away sites. If a member thinks s/he may spend more than 5 days flying at Crestline, buy the pass. For those who just want to provide a little more support to flying as a whole, it isn't an exhorbitant donation.
I'm not sure if Chris meant $75 for the pass to include Sylmar or in addition to the $60 already paid. Clarification, Chris? Your outline was was an excellent start for this topic, by the way.
I detected an undercurrent in many of these postings. I think many of our members realize that this is a worthy cause if only as justification to put a little more funds into keeping all the sites mentioned alive, even if they never fly there and at least loosely connecting the Southern California pilots in a larger organization.
The clubs can negotiate an equitable division of the funds collected; maybe 20% to the home site and the rest evenly divided by the away sites. Everyone gets a little help and no one pays that much to fly at seldom visited sites. Restrictions to avoid abuse may be required. And there has to be agreement about site regs for users, ie, must be USHPA current.
Problems:
We are not and will not be particularly PG friendly. So be careful what we ask for - isn't the CSS area big on PG members?
I've been told that Elsinore pilots are a different breed and don't care to travel to Sylmar because of all our rules. I don't know how true that is or how that affects this proposition. I do think that, eventually, Elsinore is lost unless things really change, ie, somone buys ten acres and donates them to a club for use. I've heard this from people (not pilots) living nearby who see the development in the area.
Abusers/exclusions? for sites that don't have a club or at least no membership fee. I don't think this is that much of a worry. Most of these clubs and the members are separate because of distance and to an extent, site preference. But again, the point is to add members to all the clubs' roster and those few that would fly extensively at away sites don't usually pay anything now, so we're still ahead if they go multi-pass.
Next?
Hey!
Good ideachip wrote:Now here's an idea with merit. But free? How about optionally raising the dues (slightly) and give a portion to CSS and Visa - Versa (members could choose to join both clubs at a discounted rate). Increased revenue and more members.dmartens wrote:Allow Crestline and Sylmar members to fly either club for free.
Or how about just a discounted non-voting membership (or voting?) for members of other local clubs? Simpler to administer. The only hard part is verifying that they are members of one of the other clubs, and you'd have to do that for the other plans too, I think.
Just a thought.
Me, I'm a (full) member of CSS as well as SHGA. And I donate to SB when I go there. Haven't flown Elsinore in a long time, but I'd donate there too if I went. And I might soon.
Just a thought.
Me, I'm a (full) member of CSS as well as SHGA. And I donate to SB when I go there. Haven't flown Elsinore in a long time, but I'd donate there too if I went. And I might soon.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
