DFW running club mark 2!! ALL ARE WELCOME!!!

RichOneday_2

hypno06 wrote: »

What I do think is a shame, is that a place that costs £30 for a ballot runner, costs a charity ten times that much - surely it should be the same price for every place?

I agree, but why should a charity be allowed to 'buy' places in a race at all?

The reason is that what seemed a good idea at the time has become a bit of an all consuming monster.

Initially, all places were up for ballot or allocated to clubs - no charity places. The organisers then saw a way of making more money by charging the charities and in return giving them a small number of 'guaranteed places'. It was a trivial number out of the total and there was no problem.

But the seeds were sown and each year saw the organisers taking a few more places out of the ballot and putting them in the hands of the charities. The organisers got more money and the charities could name their price so it seemed a match made in heaven.

Any bets on when the ballot disappears altogether?

beer_tins

Wow hypno, well done. How did you raise so much?!

beer_tins

I think a system where everyone pays the same entry fee and has the same chance of getting in is needed. Maybe charity runners getting a better weighting in the ballot is the way to go? But with everyone paying their own entry fee, the charities will get 100% of the money raised, minus their normal deductions, of course.

RichOneday_2

beer_tins wrote: »

I think a system where everyone pays the same entry fee and has the same chance of getting in is needed. Maybe charity runners getting a better weighting in the ballot is the way to go? But with everyone paying their own entry fee, the charities will get 100% of the money raised, minus their normal deductions, of course.

I agree with all that BT except the weighting for charity runners.

It would still form a 'pressure' to raise money for charity. Maybe I'm out on a limb here but I always thought that raising money for a charity was something you wanted to do for a reason personal to you....not because you were getting something in return.

hypno06

Beer tins - Well, firstly it is a charity that means something to me, so that helps when asking for sponsorship - although many charities are "worthy causes" I think it helps if it has a personal connection to you. That means I was happier to ask work contacts, etc.....

I put a link on as many things as I could - facebook, my MSE profile, emails to friends etc, so that it was always there for people to see and hopefully to click onto.

But the biggest thing for me was that my employer matched my sponsorship, so that doubled the amount that I had raised via the "hard route"!

I would not expect to raise that much each year - hence my statement about not asking for a charity place again in 2010.

As for the £300 entry fee rich proposes.........:eek:

I do understand where you are coming from, but we have this problem with skiing - it costs hundreds of pounds for the ski races, which means that it is down to the size of your cheque book, as much as your ability. There are lots of talented young skiers out there who have no chance of racing seriously because the cost prohibits them (or their parents), yet race fees can be "bought" by those who can afford. (AND we have to go through the "commitment and talent" bit, by running a seed point system, with a maximum number of points required before qualifying for the "big races")

Whatever the system, unless it goes back to a pure ballot, will have its pitfalls, but I think that a high entry fee would be prohibitive or at the very least offputting to many.

beer_tins

RichOneday wrote: »

I agree with all that BT except the weighting for charity runners.

It would still form a 'pressure' to raise money for charity. Maybe I'm out on a limb here but I always thought that raising money for a charity was something you wanted to do for a reason personal to you....not because you were getting something in return.

Maybe you're right. What I do think is that:

a) Runners should pay their own entry fees.

and

b) The fee should be the same for everyone.

I genuinely think it's brilliant that so many people raise so much money, but the whole charity place system has become an ugly, cynical money making scheme. And I mean ugly and cynical on the part of the LM organisers, not the charities.

RichOneday_2

hypno06 wrote: »

As for the £300 entry fee rich proposes.........:eek:

I do understand where you are coming from, but we have this problem with skiing - it costs hundreds of pounds for the ski races, which means that it is down to the size of your cheque book, as much as your ability. There are lots of talented young skiers out there who have no chance of racing seriously because the cost prohibits them (or their parents), yet race fees can be "bought" by those who can afford. (AND we have to go through the "commitment and talent" bit, by running a seed point system, with a maximum number of points required before qualifying for the "big races")

Whatever the system, unless it goes back to a pure ballot, will have its pitfalls, but I think that a high entry fee would be prohibitive or at the very least offputting to many.

No, I'm with you 100% on this Hypno....I dont want to see a £300 entry fee.

But if that is whats needed to scrap the current system by ensuring the organisers get the same revenue then it is far preferable.

At the end of the day, it is not an expensive sport compared to others and you are certainly not going to do LM more than once a year, so in sporting terms it isnt going to propel it into the more expensive sports around.

But the entry fee should be designed to put some people off and at least make some think a little more serioualy about what they're taking on. On the RW site there's talk of one guy who was in this year's race and treated it as a big joke with a longest training run of 4 miles. He pretty much walked most of it in over 7 hours and literally cant walk now and is in a mess.:eek:

beer_tins

Hypno, yes I agree on that point. The fee should be the same for everyone, but £300 seems a lot and will stop a lot of good runners without the necessary cash from taking part. You have to ask why the LM organisers find it necessary to raise so much cash in the first place. It doesn't cost that much to organise and stage and the fact that they pay so much to celebrity runners is madness. A competitive, high profile marathon would still attract top names. Or am I being naive i.e. would they go somewhere else that pays them? Either way, they must make so much money. I bet virgin are paying them a fair amount to sponsor it for starters. Just because demand is high, doesn't justify charging sky-high entry fees.

hypno06

I definitely don't think they should pay "celebrities" to run it - the event does not need the likes of Jordan and Peter Andre to make it a success - if they WANT to run it, they should do so the same as everyone else.

Anyone who thinks that 4 miles in training is sufficient should be shot - but sadly, I think even with a £300 price tag, you will get those types of idiots.......

for the record, I have run 3 times - once I got in through the ballot, once via a club entry (everyone who had been rejected put their slips into the hat at the Christmas party and mine was pulled out to win a place) and this year via a charity place.

All that remains now, I suppose is for me to either get in as Sallyx did via pledging her entry fee (too late for this year, I said "no") or to become a Z list celeb and get paid to appear.

**goes off to apply for big brother 2009**

RichOneday_2

hypno06 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that 4 miles in training is sufficient should be shot - but sadly, I think even with a £300 price tag, you will get those types of idiots.......Probably true!!

for the record, I have run 3 times - once I got in through the ballot, once via a club entry (everyone who had been rejected put their slips into the hat at the Christmas party and mine was pulled out to win a place) and this year via a charity place..............

Mine have been 2 through the ballot, one charity (boy that was hard work raising the necessary) and one in the Football Challenge. On top of that I reckon I've had maybe 10 rejections.

So 2 out of 12 ish in the ballot which seems about right.