I think we’re on £6 pcm by direct debit, only going that ‘high’ last year as our treasurer didn’t see the need to ask for any more.


No you read it right. It’s not discrimination as over time that cadet will be paying the least compared to newer recruits. It’s a rolling sutiation so in essence everyone is in the same boat.


You could call it a rolling discount based on length of service.

I’d tend to call it borderline unethical, but whatever!


But that assumes they remain in the corps and the unit doesn’t close. You can’t really compare them with a hypothetical future cadet. You should compare them with other current members of the Squadron.
What you have is a situation where you provide the same service but charge a different amount using a qualification that is very closely linked to a protected characteristic. Obviously it’s only indirectly discriminatory as it’s not explicitly linked to age so as long as it can be justified it’s OK, but at first blush I’d be slightly concerned about running that model. But it’s your unit and you’ll be more aware of the specific facts than I ever could be from reading an internet forum.


Its only the same if they hang around until the day before a generic subs rise happens. In this manner there is no subs rise throughout their attendance. Its not unethical, it happens in a variety of situations for different membership lengths. People sometimes are blinkered to the Here and now and the snowflakes always want parity with others they stand with regardless if they are the least experienced. Its fully explained and mapped.out to parents and they like it. Committee love it as it doesn’t mean a heap of paperwork to change standing orders or incessant chasing of parents who fail to act.


Unethical? Why, we don’t hide anything from people. It’s all published information. If someone leaves and decides to return, we keep the rate as of the first day they joined.

I could suggest that charging different rates for DD/cash/bulk yearly payments are unethical. We don’t pay people to process subs so why do we need to charge different rates to manage it?


i can’t agree more.

I would like to hope there is a “working fund” at a unit, which lets say runs at £3000 a year. out of that comes paper and ink for the printer, servicing, MOT and insurance for the SOV, some sponsorship for the odd Cadet going on a significant course or camp, money towards replacement kit (namely AT tents, cookers, sleeping bags) and whatever else there is to spend annually.

I would hope the Treasurer is switched on enough to notice the trend that the unit continues to raise £2500 from subs (for arguments sake) but each year is having to take a little more from the savings to meet the shortfall due to inflation.

to counter this pinching from the savings (which could be paying for the replacement SOV in X years time or part of the IT fund to replenish the IT suite in Y years) the subs are raised.

it cannot be as straightforward as that i confess. with changing numbers of Cadets between years there is going to be a difference in income (Subs) directly proportional. but the model must have some validity over time.

it is how the RBL Branch operates which i sit on (wearing an RBL hat). we have a current account and savings account. each year the accounts are audited and considered by the Committee. We look to see where the differences are between years and make a judgement based on this.
we did ours recently (July) and found we’d spent £200 more this year than we had coming in - initially it looks bad as everything is thereabouts the same.
membership fairly static, expenses the same. but when studied it was all as a result of a large expense paid from the savings account. remove that from the spreadsheet our change in funds only moved by £18 (or one membership) so deemed no need to adjust the subs.

indicating they haven’t gone up in X years so its about time isn’t justification as these tend to be large step changes not small increments.

I actually like the system employed by @Plt_Off_Prune - seems very sensible. it is a fixed cost for the duration of the Cadets membership, yet over time through the natural cycle of Cadet numbers, as the Cadets start and leave comes a subtle increase in income


One of our kids schoolmates was a club swimmer and their club ‘subs’ rose depending on what level they swam at.
At the athletics clubs IIRC we had to pay a registration fee and then ‘meet fees’ and it was similar for our sons’ football team, registration and match fees, then there was the kit on top.

I did a spend analysis several years ago for the squadron and our annual ‘fixed’ running costs were in the region of £900 (we don’t have an SOV). The committee meets these costs through subs (even after being robbed by Wing & HQAC) and I’m not a ball busting CO when it comes to spending money and I will actively seek money from elsewhere if I feel it’s needed. I see the relationship between CWC and Sqn Staff being a co-operative one and not one of a pitched battle like some I know of. We get what we need and if it takes a bit longer so be it, after all we all volunteer to do this.


I was going to start another thread to ask this question but the forum suggested I add to this one…

I have been told this morning that Army cadets is free - the only money their cadets pay is for refreshments. If this is true, what do Air Cadets subs cover as opposed to what gets funded by MOD and why do the Army Cadets not pay?


I believe they all were free. I know Glamorgan and Dyfed started charging subs several years ago as a way of fund raising for the thing like DofE that was not funded by the MoD.


Don’t the Army Cadets do DofE then?

In Steve679’s post he says that subs cover stuff such as printers & ink, camping equipment etc so I’m wondering how the Army Cadets fund this sort of stuff?


Remember, the subs we charge cadets also go to cover the bills for subs that we receive from WHQ, RHQ and HQAC.
What is left over can pay for toner and squadron goodies.

The bigger question is why do we have to pay money to HQAC on top of the money they get from the government. The difference in ratios for ACF/ATC/SCC is dependent upon what other money they get from MOD/Gov


Bag packs? Wealthy benefactor? Grants?

D of E is a special case. In theory, it costs a squadron nothing to run the DofE award. In practice, most will hold a minimum amount of AT kit for the cadets to utilise during their expedition - tents, stoves, map cases etc.

The money for that type of stuff cannot come from the tax payer. The ACF may choose to apply for grants, or hold bag packs to buy the kit, rather than charge subs.


The ACF will also in many cases receive support from whatever Regiment they hold the Cap Badge for, for example the unit I previously shared a compound with were bought a brand new minibus by their regimental association.