How much subs does your Sqn charge PER MONTH

I think you misread, it was ‘hobbles’ the unit rather than ‘hobbies’ the unit.

It doesn’t feel like it, but we should all be running hobby units :grin:

1 Like

We’ve had an increase in income - people didn’t cancel their standing orders :woman_shrugging:

2 Likes

That was me. We charge 70 a term so based on a roughly three month term I did I rough average. Though any one on a means tested scholarship gets a discount. Anyone from the state school we’re partnering with next year who is a pupil premium student gets it for free

That’s not an increase then, surely? That’s the status quo…

Increase in profit maybe if you’ve not had to fork out for supplies.

1 Like

Most clubs etc cost more outside the ATC as the groups/clubs are hiring facilities, have to pay other fees or in some instances the people are doing it as a part-time job.
A bloke I worked with, his 10 year old grandson was going to goalkeeper school which was costing £40/wk for 2 one hour sessions and then there were training ground hire costs and match fees for his club. He grand-daughter was doing dance/performance classes that cost another £30 a week. His other grandson did a couple of holiday football schools each year as well as weekly fees etc for the club he played for and he started playing cricket in the summer. His eldest grandson did go to ‘cubs’ for a while but he had to choose, as his parents were going mad with all the driving around. In the main the people who run the football and performer clubs are volunteers, although I get the impression the goalie school is run as a part-time business.

Do we as an organisation under-price ourselves, perhaps, but we would need to up our game in terms of what we provide, generally, to make any increase, value for money. All of our basic running costs are covered. If we had to pay these, subs would have to rise without anything changing, by £5-£10 per week. We charge £12 month which with additional fundraising and donations covers costs, putting some by for longer term expenses and “treats”. We have accumulated a pot over the last year and a bit. As a goodwill gesture I have suggested we offer refunds to the parents of any cadet that leaves before Christmas this year.

As we are we could all easily charge £10-£20 a week, but to what end? Sqns could acquire all the Gucci kit, but unless you have people interested, qualified or able to use it, it’s pointless. If you take the craze for watersports, not only do you need qualified staff you have to have someone to drag it or put it on their roof and that’s all they do… As a sqn my mate was on, is finding out, with no one with a qualification 6 kayaks are an odd ornament for the compound.

@MrTomMorrow the idea of a single charge and do everything has sod all to do with “proactive” and everything to do with dates for things fitting around personal availability and in the modern ATC actual places allocated to sqns. Long gone are the days of sqns getting 20-30 places for annual camps and filling them or several OS camp places. I’d soon be after refunds if for any reason my child was unable to go on something. I wonder how they’d get on if a cadet wanted to go on a trip costing several £00 or £000? Unless they have a caveat.

In the examples of my mates’ grandchildren I’ve cited, their activities are potentially future shaping, so the costs are taken as par for the course. OK might not be pro footballers or make it on stage/screen, but there is a living to be made. Not very many instances of that in our club.

Outdoor centres are far more flexible than using Air Cadet staff/facilities, it may be more expensive, but many of us parents see it as how it is and given several months or longer to pay, it is affordable. Every single school trip our kids went on was at least 2 months in advance and the more expensive at least 6 months. So with better planning from our perspective, things would be more easily affordable. I lost count especially with overseas camps how the deadlines got shorter and shorter as we moved into ewow. As a result parents were faced with demands for money at little notice, despite this doing the rounds for . I think that any camp effectively more than a week’s pay (based on average salary) should have at least 12 months lead time, with places agreed and set.

To compare to your examples of dance and football you’d need to offer something 40+ weekends per year that involved every cadet. I wouldn’t pay £40 - £80 per month for the pre-pandemic offer.

The other problem is those examples price out an awful lot of kids, my mum wouldn’t have been able to afford it for me and I know several of my cohort were in similar situations.

3 Likes

Yes to be clear I don’t think the single charge system is the best system, simply saying I know a Sqn that does it. I think there is a caveat for overseas trips etc.

Sorry, what? This is just so far from the mark it’s untrue.

6 Likes

May I ask when you submitted your bid? We submitted one just prior to Covid and was advised that the board wasn’t meeting during that time (last confirmation Apr21).

So far we have a subs range of…
Free…?

To £23 per month…

Couple of thoughts.

How can a Sqn change nothing?

The range across the Corps is stupidly large.

Definitely time for a min and max price to be set by HQAC. We are not even competitive for ourselves, by the looks of it!

It would be nice, just occasionally, for a topic to benefit from some Civcom input, after all it is some or all of the Civcom who actually pay over the subs money. If there are variations between what is paid at each Unit, it might suggest that some Units are more pro-active and able to offer a better range of activities, with staff available. But there is surely no problem with hiring in, if you dont have the skill, except of course the inevitable RAFAC thing about DBS.

The end result on subs is how good the OC is at selling proposals to the Civcom, who after all have to fund everything that the Corps does not, if you are hoping to offer a wide range of interesting activities that will captivate the youth, and enable them to benefit from their transition in the citizenship stakes. i think AEF is gradually creeping into this.

The subs as such, do not subsidise anything the Exchequer provides ( or are supposed not to) ,as it is all non-public funds, and a high level of subs might reflect a lack of success in accessing grants, or maybe there is an expensive purchase looming, such as a replacement SOV.

My Sqn did very well in a short space of time, secured many grants and bought lot so kit across a range of activities, and also had much donated - sadly Wing got involved trashed everything and all that kit was never used.= not really the purpose for charitable donations.

The size of the Squadron should also come into the equation, so based upon what has been asked, there is no logical conclusion. But let’s have Civcom input on this or even the wider Sqn Association - because as parents, they should understand what the Cadets think or want, or are these individuals likely to complicate matters and should just keep paying over the cash.
.

Why was it never used?

So what would your recommendation be for how units determine their subs charges? Should they increase annually by inflation? What is reasonable?

That may be true in some cases. But one also has to consider the area which the Sqn serves… If other comparable youth activities are considerably lower in cost; or a sqn serves a less affluent area and maybe 40% of parents are saying “We’re going to struggle to pay that” then a Sqn should probably consider lowering its subs.

Ultimately the opinion of the Sqn staff, represented by the OC, should be given weight with regards the ‘maximum subs’. They run the unit and if the subs are too high then their unit is going to flounder.
However, the CivCom need to take the initiative to ensure that, working with that maximum subs, any shortfall is covered.

The OC says “This is what we plan to deliver; this is what we need to do so; and this is how much it will cost…”
Besides a quick ‘sanity check’ to ensure that the OC isn’t being unrealistic, the CivComs job is to facilitate that. That may mean applying for grants, increasing the subs a little, or running a book stall at the village fete… Provided that it does not adversely affect the Sqn, how the CivCom do their job is up to them.
It would be inappropriate for example for the CivCom to decide that “the cadets will do a bag pack” to raise money.

Personal opinion here.

I can understand a min and max being added.

But I have been involved with squadrons who are from an affluent area, where they could afford to pay for a selection of activities. Even have they’re children flown home from a family holiday to take part in a competition, before theying them back out again… To squadrons where cadets can barely pay for the subs, and the boots and shoes they are wearing are 5 family cadets old, and showing it.

1 Like

That’s a lot of words to not let on what subs were charged on the squadron you were a trustee of, and how that was affected by the OC and the CivCom’s grant-getting ability.

You’ve listed a lot of known variables, but not given the CivCom view on adapting to them - at the start of your tome I hoped that’s where you were going with it - after all:

So please could we get some actual input? How do all of these things balance out when Aries is going through the decision making process?

Additional context on what was purchased might help as well. And I echo the question as to how/why Wing stopped its use please.

Reading between the many lines, you would suggest:

  • high subs = few grants, low skilled CFAV hiring in expertise, lots to buy

  • Low subs = lazy staff, lack of ambition, an OC that couldn’t sell water in the desert.

If that’s the wrong interpretation please let me know, because sometimes intent can be lost when trying to get a thought across and something that seems obvious to the writer can be less so to the reader.

And would a large Squadron in your mind be be able to charge less by spreading cost, or more to fund and buy more with little regard to the few that might drop out because the Sqn can “afford to lose them”?

Also, can you explain this a bit more please?

Are you suggesting our CivComs don’t have a say? That parents aren’t consulted? And that we CFAV regard them with disfavour?

Feels like a veiled anti-statement against those here for discussing methods and ideas, trying to suggest a derogatory mindset and shady motivation. I’m sensing a patronising, passive-aggressive tone throughout as well, right from:

Through explaining what subs are, all the way to:

Again, I could be wrong and that’s not what you meant.

4 Likes

I am not sure I follow this thought process.

a range of activities and cost per month might have a correlation, but in my experience across a handful of Wings at multiple Squadrons is subs are subs…ie an admin charge and have no relevance to what activities or events the Squadron lays on.

If the unit is keen on band, watersports or shooting, all of that kit which has required funding has come out of other sources (separate fund raising) not through subscriptions.

perhaps as CWC you have the excuse to be ignorant but hiring in is allowed, and one-off instructors do not need DBS, so there is not “thing about DBS”.

that said most instructors who would be hired in, be it climbing, water sports, or other tend to have DBS anyway

And if hiring in instructors in my experience this cost is paid for by those taking part in the activity, not by the Squadron as a whole (via Subs).
Even going to the local climbing wall we ask the Cadets to contribute - I think the CWC covers half, but never it is all covered simply as an automatic decision or assumption.
where an event attracts a cost those who participate contribute, either fully or significant portion where the CWC have decided to subsidise

i completely disagree.

All of the units I have been on raise money through a variety of events, assisting at local events, be that traffic marshalling, crowd management, being the “army of heavy lifters” to move furniture in/out of a hall or even helping to run the local village show, and of course the Christmas Bag packs and the rest all go towards the funding for the “activites the Corps does not”.
yes some of this has gone towards the SOV, but not all. allowing money to be spent on new kit, sometimes this can be £300 on new radios, or £1000 on new tents, or whatever the cost might be.

In all the units I have been on Subs have been “a bare minimum” and surprised to read there are examples above £10/month. I have always seen it is membership fee not as a source of income revenue to exploit so those who choose to go climbing have the harnesses and helmets required.

Subs levels really are the domain for CWCs to set. They know the baseline costs for the squadron which should be the starting point, this includes the money we have to give to HQAC. I don’t think the area you live in makes very much difference in the grand scheme. Where we are there is a real mix of households and we get cadets from across the spectrum. I put any ‘hardship’ requests through the Chairman and Treasurer who then bring it up in confidence, no names, at the next meeting. So only 3 of us know who is asking for assistance. It’s then down to the CWC to decide if they will and to what extent. In 26 yrs of running units I have never known a case being rejected. Members have asked for names, but the Chairmen have always said it is not appropriate, because of the nature of what it is it will always be in confidence and need to know.

As OC I would not suggest subs go up or down, as it’s not my place. OCs are ex-officio and just there to advise on the things the cadets and staff have done and will be doing and put in requests for equipment and goodies, which the committee then vote on. I’ve known OC who have got too involved and got into real messes as a result. I have only got out my pram a couple of times when parents who are ex-PTA join the CWC and started telling me what they were going to buy and do for the squadron and I said that it’s not your place to that. One of them reported me to the Wg Cdr who said I was is correct. Although he did email me to advise what had gone on and said I should have gone through the Sqn and Wg Chairman.

For a squadron with the mythical 30 cadets charging £10/mth that’s £3600pa coming in, which given our rent, maintenance and utility costs are covered from the defence budget, should be more than enough with ad hoc donations to provide the majority of the squadrons needs. I did ask the CWC to set up a savings account in the mid 00s so that we could put money aside for large expenditures, especially IT.

As we are not out the woods in terms of the pandemic, financially some sqns could be really hit hard, as they lose a number of cadets and have to “re-build”. I wonder if HQAC will step in with money from the GPF to help with this?

I don’t know if any thoughts on competitive pricing really matter - cadets aren’t going to be joining us because we’re more affordable than football. Especially thanks to pricing not being centralised I think it’s mostly an afterthought.

1 Like

I second this idea, as even within the corps itself cadets can only go so far and arnt going to travel miles for the most economically pleasing squadron.