Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Kyle":jv60itmr wrote:The reason you have to be a member to play in the DIHL is that’s a DIHA run competition, using DIHA resources, played using special DIHA members only ice rates.[/quote:jv60itmr]
I think Chris’s point was that the DIHA does not need to charge a registration fee for players to play, which is obviously correct.
The main point here is that the DIHA is shooting itself in the foot by not getting enough players for it’s events, which in turn leads to less money in the bank.
Presumably a fee will need to charged. I know some funding agencies look at that (OUSA springs to mind) as a way to check that the number of actual members is an actual real number (if no fee is charged then you can sign up anybody who wanders past).
Kyle, is it possible for us to get hold of the treasury information so that we can work out the finances and come up with a suitable number to suggest? We need to do something to drop it down to a more reasonable fee, $75 is just ludicrous and will make it very difficult to build numbers back up to pre-fees hike days (125+ players/10 teams DIHL Autumn 06).
"Chris":1panz34w wrote:[size=1:1panz34w][i:1panz34w]
Without being disrespectful, this is what lefties just don’t get. “We need more money, therefore raise taxes.” Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong.[/i:1panz34w][/size:1panz34w][/quote:1panz34w][size=1:1panz34w][i:1panz34w]
[b:1panz34w]Totally irrelevant piece of information:[/b:1panz34w]
I watched an interview with Jim Bolger recently. Interestingly he admitted that most of the policies of Labour when they took over from National circa mid-1990’s were appropriate for that point in time due to the reasons you outlined above. NZ needed money in the early 1990’s so National did that, then in the late 1990’s we didn’t need so much money, hence Labour style policies were more appropriate. It kinda surprised me that the was so upfront about it.[/i:1panz34w][/size:1panz34w]"Kyle":3jhmnhq9 wrote:Yes the money does come out of the same pool, but it still needs to be earnt. If you put it on registrations like we do at present, you’re earning it before you spend it.[/quote:3jhmnhq9]I don’t know what the books look like so I don’t know how all that stacks up.
If there is enough money already in there the risk can be handled, if there isn’t then obviously it wouldn’t work. Hard to know without seeing the numbers though.
"Kyle":3jhmnhq9 wrote:The club won’t be having just one DIHL this year. Your registration gets you access to what will probably be 14 weeks of SNC competition, plus everything else.[/quote:3jhmnhq9]Yeah, but not everyone can or want to play in all of them … which is not necessarily the type of people we want, but … beginners tend to make up a reasonable proportion of those. Many will want to try it but not sure if they’ll keep going hence that up front cost is pretty steep.
And what about me later in the season? I’ll need to pay $100 plus DIHL fees probably for a single season which is pretty steep if it is only seven games long.
"twolefts":29ogqi32 wrote:If we had a late fee for DIHL this season, the club would be rolling in $. In the extra week I had to add on to the sign up period the number of people signed up more than doubled.
[/quote:29ogqi32]It would be good if you could do that next time. Not penalizing people for late payments encourages them to keep doing it. Kyle and I had a lot of trouble overcoming this when we first started running the DIHL and it took about a year for people to realise how important it was to sign up on time. Even then people still expected to be able to sign up late since every other DIHA event was allowing late payments.
Money is money, it all goes into a consolidated fund anyway so where it goes and where it comes from is irrelevant IMO. As long the numbers add up and it is being used in the best way to improve the DIHA and it’s members is all that should matter.
The SIHL, NZIHF registration and anything else just comes out of the same generic pool of cash anyway so it doesn’t matter if the club doesn’t charge enough to cover it from the actual registration fee. The only situation I could imagine that being a problem would be if members from other clubs decided to sign up for our club and then transfer back to save themselves some money, but I’m sure something could be done to work around that problem.
I don’t have access to the raw data to know how the numbers stack up so my $15 was a total stab in the dark guess.
The issue of kids vs adults doesn’t necessarily need to be handled via the registration, you can just drop ice time to compensate for that. Remembering here that ‘adults’ in Dunedin also correlates to ‘students’ who in general probably can’t afford as much as the parents in an upfront fee. The students can probably be charged more in total, but knowing how poor most students are at organising their finances (not spending it on beer) it will cause problems when they need to front up with large amounts of cash in single lumps. Having said that, I’m not actually suggesting not reducing the junior/youth fees, just that they don’t necessarily NEED to be reduced since there are other ways to deal with that side of things.
PS: $75 is still WAYYY to high for seniors IMO. That stacks up as $145 for seven games in the DIHL just to try it. So that’s over $20/game … too expensive.
I think we all (Aaron, Kyle and me) actually agree on this stuff. Perhaps we need a plan of attack on how to change it?
Personally I’m a big fan of a minimal registration cost ($15/year perhaps) for those who don’t compete in a league and absorbing that fee into the cost of competing in a league. So those who only want to come on Sundays still need to pay their dosh/fill out a form so that we can spam them with advertising/scalp info. about them and boost our ‘official’ membership numbers. But those who play in a league (like the DIHL) would just be told that DIHL registration includes their rego. fee.
If a good enough argument can be put forward, then I’m sure a decision could be made to change the rego. fees drastically for 2010; particularly if we can quantify the drop in income due to the change for 2009.
I tried to argue this same point the other year when they jumped up. But the argument then was that we needed an immediate influx of cash to pay for Jenel so I backed down and didn’t push the matter too much.
I agree with most of what Kyle said.
"Kyle":cto4v7ar wrote:There’s nothing preventing DIHL from having a prizegiving and party. Ryan and I did this a couple of times, but stopped because there was limited interest.[/quote:cto4v7ar]Actually I think the reason it flopped was because we didn’t put any effort into running it.
"Kyle":cto4v7ar wrote:It’s not up to the committee to do that at all.[/quote:cto4v7ar]I think Aarons point was that it is the committee members who effectively make the decision since they’re the ones doing the talking (generally) at the AGM’s.
The problem is that some people keep relating the membership fee to the total amount of money the club has which is not relevant IMO. The issue being dealt with at the AGM is the ratio of competition/practice fees to the registration fee and how it affects the total DIHA income. The total of the practice/competition/registration fees is what ultimately affects the clubs income, which is something which doesn’t seem to be understood by many of those calling for higher registration costs.
Someone needs to teach some basic economics to those who keep calling for a higher rego. fee. The numbers simply don’t add up and this DIHL season will hopefully demonstrate this.
Looks like he has other plans unfortunately.
[quote:3hd5vmte]Doing a … thing this year on that weekend, so it will sadly be a miss. Too bad! I thought it was during Easter.[/quote:3hd5vmte]
Hopefully my girlfriend doesn’t question why I’m going to the Cook by myself …
I sent an email to the unnamed goalie. Hopefully they’ll be keen to return, if not, well I guess I’ll be heading to the Cook to find another one …
"vpatrol":1q73f6tw wrote:They had to in aussie too. Not terribly uncommon. Players fall under the leagues umbrella insurance policy which many rinks often want.
[/quote:1q73f6tw]I’m not an expert on such matters, but … AFAIK Australia has quite different laws. In NZ there is little benefit to players and no risk to the rink in the governing body providing insurance.
The Dunedin, Gore, Queenstown, Naseby, Tekapo, Alexandra and Christchurch rinks certainly don’t care if you aren’t a member of the NZIHF. I don’t know about the Auckland rinks though.
The name of said goalie shall not be mentioned.
Although they may be interested in playing again. They sent me an email recently saying they’re leaving the country for a while but will be back soon. I’m not sure if ‘soon’ will be in time for the Easton Cup or not.
” title=”Tongue” />