Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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. If you tack it onto the DIHL or something, you’re spending it when you register the players for $15 income, and then hoping to make it back on the leagues. You’re creating risk where previously you had none. You’re also creating discouragement for people to play more hockey by tacking the costs onto the hockey, which would cost $100+ rather than $70.
"Ryan":g3rsgw7o wrote: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.
[/quote:g3rsgw7o]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. There might be a few people that are just here for half a year, there’s unlikely to be anything that we can do about that.
A $15 membership fee would be a loss leader. About $25/player goes to the NZIHF. Another chunk of money goes to the SIHL for many of us. The problem you’d have with included part of the registration in the league is that a person would pay more registration if they entered in more than one league. It also wouldn’t differentiate between youth and adult registration.
I’d be in favour of returning registrations to what we had last year – about $75 for a senior, $50 for youth. Though I have yet to produce a budget for the club to justify it. I suspect those are the right sorts of amounts.
I’d also want (using clubhub most likely) link registrations and DIHL more closely. And Saturday club nights. So at the beginning of the year you’d sign up for everything. Registration would drive DIHL, club night teams, practices etc. If you can push all that commmitment (possibly with payment plans) forward, then you can plan your year much easier.
And put in a late payment penalty to encourage people to sign up in February/early March, so that the club can plan those things out more fully. There should be a late fee for DIHL as well.
Some people would argue the same thing this year, and yet no money from registrations is going towards professional coaching. I’d always argue that registrations should not support professional coaching. As far as I know they’ve never been used for that, but they might have been in 2007. You couldn’t raise registrations enough to support pro coaching except in a spreadsheet. A $250 registrations would defer so many people from registering that you’d have to keep increasing the fee ($300, $350…) to reach your eventual goal.
The club is going to be making quite a bit of money this year due to some good work in fundraising. It will go beyond the amount that we can throw back into the club in coach and referee support, hypothetically the club could employ a development officer in 2010. The amount of money we’ll make from raising the registration fees pales in comparison.
As a side note, last year the club was supposed to charge a $50/player levy which was supposed to build up financial resources for 2009 for professional coaching (2008 professional coaching was funded by a grant). The people who returned money to players from practices however, returned this money to the players, I suspect because they just forgot they were supposed to keep it. I had to restrain myself at the AGM.
Where’s the copy of the old constitution? I’ll update it.
As far as I know membership cards were given to team managers to distribute. I would presume for you that means Thunder. But I’ll check with Callum to make sure that I’m correct in that.
"Ryan":z13m0mp7 wrote:"Kyle":z13m0mp7 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:z13m0mp7]Actually I think the reason it flopped was because we didn’t put any effort into running it.
[/quote:z13m0mp7]Shush! Don’t let all our secrets out! Everyone thinks we were the bomb at running the DIHL.
"Ryan":z13m0mp7 wrote:"Kyle":z13m0mp7 wrote:It’s not up to the committee to do that at all.[/quote:z13m0mp7]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.
[/quote:z13m0mp7]Yes but that’s not going to change unless ‘ordinary players’ take an interest in the AGM and turn up. And sure Aaron, there will be some drifters who pass through and have no control, but most ordinary Dunedin-based members can turn up and influence the decisions made.
If anyone at the last AGM had raised the points that Aaron was raising a different decision might have been reached. No one raised them however. Aaron should organise half a dozen people to turn up at the next AGM and move to reduce the levy, that way it’ll get discussed.
There is no relationship (at present) between the membership levy and what it costs to run the club. It wasn’t even raised at the AGM whether we had enough money in 2008 with the old levies. That will be changing next AGM, I’ll be asking the treasurer to prepare a budget so that we can start to try and have a relationship between the “amount of money we need to run a good club” and “amount we charge members”.
But you can’t argue that the DIHL runs in isolation from the club. Scoring, officials, organising, ice etc are all provided by the DIHA. You have to be a member of the club if you want to take advantages of the services they provide (including DIHL).
"Azzy77":300txw6c wrote:You shouldn’t have to be fully registered to play DiHL……..
[/quote:300txw6c]That would be a strategically bad decision. You’d be putting incentives in for people to only play a little ice hockey, and making the barrier between just playing DIHL vs playing a lot more. You’d be discouraging people from attending practices (which require registration), club nights (a new initiative), SIHL etc. There’s nothing wrong with having to be a member of the club to play in a club competition, the price of being a member of the club has just increased a lot over the past four years.
There’s no reason you shouldn’t register to play DIHL. It’s a competition run by the DIHA, using DIHA resources and volunteers. The question should be what is the amount of money that the DIHA should collect off its members.
"Azzy77":300txw6c wrote:For DiHL players there has been no added benefits for these extra costs, in fact in the old days there was a big party, prizegiving held with the profits from DiHL, so for increase in spending people are actually getting a lot less.
[/quote:300txw6c]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. DIHL is structured so that it is supposed to make a small profit to return to the club, that’s nothing new, it’s always done that, almost every club that runs an SNC competition has this as part of the purpose of the competition.
It’s not up to the committee to do that at all. The committee doesn’t set the membership fee, it’s set by everyone who turns up to the AGM. Last year there was a belief that because hockey is expensive elsewhere, we should make it expensive here.
Which isn’t in itself bad, but it should be money that the club needs, and can justify those needs. Yet the membership fee and the needs of the club are not connected at all.
"twolefts":2w1et9ar wrote:A large number of people who normally play DIHL have complained about the cost of DIHA membership this year and have not signed up because of it.
[/quote:2w1et9ar]Yeah. It will be interesting to see what the committee does with this next year. Most of the people who argued for increasing the fee at the AGM, don’t mind spending the extra money. They’re all getting more value than someone who just plays DIHL, as they’re doing club nights, oldtimers, practices and other activities. I suspect the decreased number of registrations has meant we haven’t earned much more money from registrations this year. 4 teams will be the smallest DIHL ever.
Some ‘ordinary punters’ will need to front up at the AGM and argue for either a differentiated fee again, or a fee reduction, or both.
Kara are there rosters and timetables for the DIHL? Be good to get those on the web site.
And have Michael and Joyce been sent information as head referee and scorer?
Our peewee players already play intra-club games amongst themselves, it happens most Saturdays.
The kids like to travel, they like to play in other rinks, and they like to score goals and win.
We’ve discussed not taking some of them, neither the kids nor the parents want to do that.
As far as I know, there isn’t a shortage of goalies for next weekend, unless the Juniors or a team from elsewhere are looking for one.
Yeah thanks for that.
Our beginner kids don’t play peewee hockey, we bring them up from kiwihockey to peewees once they’re playing at the right level. It’s a luxury that other clubs don’t necessarily have.
We try and work our kids hard during their games no matter what the opposition, keep them backchecking, passing on offence and playing a team game. We also try not to just run up the score against weaker teams as that doesn’t serve either side any good. Hence with one sub, we don’t mind pulling a second one to the bench for a few minutes to keep the ones on the ice active.
We’re also going to talk to Christchurch and see if we can go up there for a weekend and play some of their peewee teams. We’ll get competitive games against Queenstown in this grade, but all the other teams are basically running squads of beginners, and we don’t travel with beginner kids, they’re still playing kiwihockey.
We pulled players off as both games went on so that we were playing one down, the defence were instructed to let the other teams through so that they should get some shots on goal in the third period.
It’s hard for kids not to score when they have the puck, and as a coach there’s a limit to what you can do and still motivate your kids and keep them enthused. If we’d stopped at 10 goals the games would have finished by the end of the first period.
