Quick poll on TBA sanction card cost

[socko]

I am starting to play my first League ever at the age of 31. I do not imagine I will be playing at any level higher than my social league each week.
I am learning about what the TBA used to be & what it seems to be now simply from reading this forum on a regular basis. I have to say that where I sit right now, uneducated compared to most who have spoken in this thread, I would refuse to pay a membership that isn't compulsary nor rewarding in any manner to me whatsoever.
If I knew that my own achievements each & every week were being recognised by a governing body that rewarded me for my achievements & accomplishments, then I would be happy to support that governing body in any manner neccessary. Mainly because I believe there is nothing better than recognition, encouragement & support at any level of experience.

Shadowknight offers an exciting proposal to a newcomer like me. I have recently this week played my first 150 game ever & it will only stay with me now as a memory. It's a long way off from a 300 as most bowlers here obvioously are aiming for, but I am extremely proud of that game & hope to keep continuity. I only have my own encouragement to push me along.

I too like the idea RobbieB put forward:

Membership should be paid as a $1/week surcharge on a league set. More frequent bowlers will pay more, sure, but they are also more likely to get more out of it.

The way I understand it & please forgive me if I am perceiving this incorrectly, once upon a time the TBA was supportive to all members by rewarding excelent gameplay with awards (Chevrons/Badges etc) & were actively involved with their members. In return the membership fee was approx. double what it is now & had many members year after year.
Nowadays the TBA membership fee is half of the amount with no reward system to members for their achievments in the game they are actively supporting, & membership numbers have significantly dropped & continue to do so.

We are asked to support a sanctioning body by choice to, in return support the sport for it's present & future.
The way I feel about it is, Please support us so we can support you.

 

[steve jones]

I realise that dwelling on the past is not always productive - and I suspect to many it is simply boring..but despite this, the following may well be a lesson learned.

In the early 1990's and with 115,000 plus members - the ATBC devised a premier membership program linked the the commercially available Presidential Card. At the time the Presidential Card was sold to individuals and was also linked to many membership groups, eg Ansett Airlines FF lounge members - to name just one. The card offered significant discounts and "buy one get one free bonus options" across a raft of national and state by state, city by city restaurants, hotels/motels, rental car agencies etc etc....in addition ATBC members enjoyed insurance discounts with Zurich, Qantas discounts, Travelodge Hotel benefits..and more.

The ATBC card was promoted using John Burgess as the front man - a quality video was produced [Framework] to help sell the card to all associations and Burgess made himself available to do personal appearances as best he could to help drive the concept.

The ATBC Presidential Card cost about 50% more than the then standard membership [$15.00 if I recall]. Despite pre release survey data collected - the exercise was not a success.

When, after the fact surveys were done, many suggested that the benefits offered did not fit their own requirements [despite sizable positve reaction to the benefits pre release]. I'd suggest that personal apathy played a larger role than many would admit.

I might say to those that want to up the TBA fee to a greater degree that a lot can be learned from history, and this exercise in particular - however, and on the other hand, there is almost no such thing as a new idea - just an old idea that's time has come!

 

[jockey]

Here in Melbourne we have two area associations: MTBA & CTBAM. The MTBA is the original association in Melbourne and the CTBAM was born after the MTBA broke away from the ATBC in 78. Anyway both have been affiliated with the TBA for a number of years now.

As a member of both the MTBA & CTBAM due to league and / or tournament commitments I think they both should be looked at as models for the TBA. They both provide awards to bowlers and promote league / tournament play on limited budgets.

They do have a paid office staff member and to those saying this should not be the case then if they want to volunteer they should otherwise they should try finding people who will put in the time gratis with todays cost of living expenses.

All directors etc as far as I'm aware in both organisations are volunteers and are voted on by the members each year (someone correct me if I am wrong please) and this is the model the TBA should be answerable too.

I don't have a problem with reimbursement for out of pocket expenses (i.e. TBA related travel) but do have a problem with a high wage for any TBA directors if the current fee structure was not changed.

 

[ShadowKnight]

What a healthy conversation this is, now if only the TBA would take notice of it.

 

[Animal]

In 1988 my daughter played in a team sport at club level, and her sign on fee,
( including her national accreditation fee of $120.00 ) was $165.00. Now this wasn`t Tenpin Bowling I know, but it was only at club level. Nobody complained, it had to be payed if you wanted to play. The benefits from the
National body of that sport were non existent. I dread to think what those same fees are today. When setting National accreditation fees, the National body of any sport should bite the bullet and set realistic fees, and then work out the benefits they can provide for their members.At the same time, members should be realistic in their expectations of what they should receive
as well. After all, you cannot administer anything without a certain amount of the costs being un - redeemable. It`s just a matter of being between a rock and a hard place and you will never please everyone, and lets face it, people
are getting less and less realistic in their expectations as time goes on.
Cheers
Lawrie

 

[Captain Fudge]

Hi Lawrie,

Mate, that is the most commonsense view I have read on this thread.

The old saying, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys is very true in the case of tenpin bowling.

Give the new board & CEO something tangible to work with and then complain after if they don't deliver.

Up until now the management of bowling in this country has been operating on a shoe string and it just does not work.

They have some team building to do in the coming financial year and with proper financing they will stand every chance of success.

Give them nothing, you will get nothing, plain and simple as that.

Hopefully their forward plans will be approved and then a budget will tell us how much it will cost.

 

[ShadowKnight]

The old saying, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys is very true in the case of tenpin bowling.

Very true, but if the peanuts are to go up I would expect we should all receive some peanut butter from the monkeys. Any fee increase must demonstrate that there is a real benefit to being involved for all members.

 

[Susanne]

Lawrie & John
Well said and I totally agree but it is a waste of time putting anything constructive on this forum as you will always have some peanut coming back with ill-informed comments
Susanne

 

[GoTheCell]

Like you just did with your pointless dig at everyone?

Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[willey]

Having read all the Posts on this subject, I would say Robbie Buckley made the most sense. I liked his ideas and think they could work.

I voted for $25, Wayne did'nt have a $20 option but $1 a week would hardly be noticeable.

willey

 

[ShadowKnight]

I would be happy with the $1 a week scenario on the proviso that there is a clear benefit to the bowlers.

If that makes me a peanut then so be it.

 

[GBS]

I feel that the membership fee is not the problem.

It's the unsustainable loss of members by everything not related to membership fees.

 

[BobH]

I voted for $50 and am amazed at the number of people who want a detailed list of benefits they will get for their investment of $1 per week.
If we(the bowlers) want an improvement we need to provide money to the TBA.

 

[suzij]

I personally prefer a set cost, as I, for one, am on a pension, and $12.50 compared to $1 per week ($45 pa) would not cut the mustard for me.
Double that for a couple bowling in the same league, and if one of the couple was bowling a 2nd league as well, then triple that - $135 is just too much, and not worth our time and petrol expenses, considering we are paying around $1.50 per litre here, this would not be feasible, and bowling will then lose another 2 members.

We have both been bowling for over 30 years.

Suzi

 

[ShadowKnight]

I voted for $50 and am amazed at the number of people who want a detailed list of benefits they will get for their investment of $1 per week.

I do not quite understand your amazement. It is only fair that any price rise is justified by detailing what it will deliver in return. There is consensus that $12.50 is too cheap and personally I am quite prepared to pay $50 if there is a detailed list of what that delivers to me and I can see clear benefit to myself personally and the sport generally.

For example, as a member of an RSL club I get x% off services and at the end of the financial year a financial summary, I understand this and gladly pay it, if there was a fee increase I would ask why and based on the answers may choose to remain a member or leave.

It is no different to the TBA and simply revolves around the questions "What does the TBA offer me (or will offer me for increased funds)?" and "What do I value from that offering?". They are selfish questions I know, but what incentive is there for me to hand over money if in return all I get is a card that sits in the bowling bag to never see the light of day?

If we(the bowlers) want an improvement we need to provide money to the TBA.

Agreed, but all we want to see is documentation of what the improvements/benefits will be delivered from more money being poured into the association. Especially given the lack of visibiity of what the TBA is currently offering its membership.

 

[Andrew S.]

Major changes in fees will certainly affect membership numbers.
If TBA doesnt know what their income stream will be until next year, how can they prepare a comprehensive budget and offer membership benefits now?

 

[ShadowKnight]

Major changes in fees will certainly affect membership numbers.
If TBA doesnt know what their income stream will be until next year, how can they prepare a comprehensive budget and offer membership benefits now?

Sorry I forgot 1 word there, it is "proposed" so the previous closing line should read:

"Agreed, but all we want to see is documentation of what the proposed improvements/benefits will be delivered from more money being poured into the association."

If theres no plans then there should be no increase and we all continue as is even with the current levels of dissatisfaction.