Membership rates

[Jdsk]

Seems to be a charitable company limited by guarantee.

(There are other structures: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-types-how-to-choose-a-structure.)

Jonathan

[roberts8]

RA has 100000 and Cuk has 70000 so not a bad comparison as one charity to another.

[PH]

Walking has always been cheaper than riding

[Cyril Haearn]

Nearly everybody walks

The ctc should aim to copy the success of the R$PB

[Philip Benstead]

RA has 100000 and Cuk has 70000 so not a bad comparison as one charity to another.

RA membership is on a long term decline told to me by a former national Chair of the RA.

[AndyK]

Just thought I would check what other groups pay and all local fishing clubs have a lower fee for seniors and running lakes is not cheap so quite a few outgoings. The Ramblers Association is probably a better comparison as it is not staffed by volunteers and has no senior fee but an individual cost Of 36 pounds pa so why is Cuk charging so much more?

Well, there's the third party insurance and legal advice service. I'm not an expert on Ramblers' membership but I can't see an equivalent to those. But both are charities: their job is not just to cover the cost of membership, nor is it to make a profit, but to raise money that can be used to work towards their charitable goals. Each charity has to make its own judgement on how much to ask of its members to help with that.

Cyril mentions the RSPB: there's another one that doesn't offer a reduced membership for over-65s. It allows members to choose how much they pay, but the recommended minimum amount is £5 a month - that's £60 a year. They're quite clear on why they set this minimum:

Whilst we do not offer concessionary discounts, RSPB membership is Flexible thus allowing supporters to choose their level of giving at a rate and frequency they are comfortable with. The recommended minimum amount is set at £5 per month to allow for sufficient funds, after administration and member benefit costs (such as Nature Home Magazine) are taken into account, to be used for our core objective of Giving Nature a Home.

https://www.rspb.org.uk/join-and-donate/join-us/

[thirdcrank]

But cUK publicity is not clear about why income is needed. On the contrary, it stresses member benefits, so it's hardly surprising a cost/benefit analysis is made, a the sniping at the pay of staff is an extension of that.

Si's analysis in this thread explains why the charity needs more dough.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=140138

[Oldjohnw]

With the RSPB you seem to get a very identifiable return. Quite apart from a fine magazine and entry to reserves, you are quite clearly assisting in conservation work.

I imagine most members see this latter as their main reason for joining. And everyone knows what RSPB is. Few outside of cycling would have any idea of CUK.

I suspect people feel much more distant from CUK. Many are perhaps not very evangelical in widening cycle use. They just want insurance, a quite interesting magazine, but little sense of belonging.

RSPB had its own trauma a few years ago when it broadened its scope to include all wildlife and not just birds. It changed its magazine to its present title 'Nature's Home'. Many disagreed and I believe many left.


Just a thought.

[AndyK]

But cUK publicity is not clear about why income is needed. On the contrary, it stresses member benefits, so it's hardly surprising a cost/benefit analysis is made, a the sniping at the pay of staff is an extension of that.

Si's analysis in this thread explains why the charity needs more dough.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=140138

Si makes some excellent points, though it's not the whole story. I will try and write a bit more about this when I get time.

[thirdcrank]

... Si makes some excellent points, though it's not the whole story. I will try and write a bit more about this when I get time.

I'd value that. Perhaps it's obvious but I'll say it anyway, the thread I linked above is the ... er ... obvious place for that.

[Rod Brooks]

Reference the proposed older members discount, I echo the words of Rod Goodfellow in all respects. I joined several years ago mainly for the 3rd party insurance, but thought it would be nice to support such a cycling body as I imagined it to be. I now think CUK offers very little to the traditional club cyclist. With regards to my requirement for 3rd party insurance I can obtain this elsewhere for a fraction of the cost of CUK membership, with this in mind I will not be renewing when my current membership expires.

[gaz]

The new £15 for 6 month membership package is strangely absent from the membership options page.

[Mal43]

Having returned to cycling in my 70's after a long time away I joined CUK this year mainly for the insurance and legal cover benefit. Believing that being on public roads I should be insured I looked at the BC offer, and other insurance options and selected to join CUK because of the over 65 membership fee. This was a lot cheaper than BC, and not a lot more expensive than insuring through, say, Wiggle. If the fee change proposal is approved then next year my membership fee will be around twice the cost of rider insurance alone elsewhere, and as the current "member benefits" are of marginal interest I would be thinking very hard about whether to renew.

The argument that the senior fee must go to enable a means tested concessionary rate for unwaged is specious IMO. I am not against such a concession in principle, but I don't think that it should be paid for by transferring funds from senior members. The quietly stated concern about maintaining future income streams is I suspect the main driver. Though I find it hard to believe that an increase in membership levels to the targetted 100,000 will be achieved via a huge increase in members at the proposed concessioanry rate, leave alone sufficient to offset the loss of a quantity of us "old-uns".

Some have said that being retired doesn't mean automatically being unable to afford the increase - that is true, but speaking for myself I have a state pension plus 2 small supplementary pensions, one of which is fixed, which take me out of reach of pension credits, but not by a lot. I have to be careful what I spend money on.

As an aside I notice that senior management costs seem to have increased by a very significant amount 2018 to 2019, a percentage increase I would be delighted to receive in my pension income.

Mal.

[MartinC]

.....As an aside I notice that senior management costs seem to have increased by a very significant amount 2018 to 2019......

Yes, "We're abolishing the Senior rate in the interests of fairness and increasing the rewards for Senior Management 'cos we'll have moved on before there's any comeback - but it's all for charity"

[AndyK]

.....As an aside I notice that senior management costs seem to have increased by a very significant amount 2018 to 2019......

Yes, "We're abolishing the Senior rate in the interests of fairness and increasing the rewards for Senior Management 'cos we'll have moved on before there's any comeback - but it's all for charity"

@Mal43: Senior management costs - as measured by the remuneration paid to "key management personnel" - went down by £59,000. (Annual report page 74.)

@MartinC: <Sigh> Really?