Fulk said:
I think it would go a long way.
A long way to what, exactly? The BCA premium is pretty paltry, anyway, so I don't know what 'a long way' of a low premium would go towards.
I hope the OP doesn?t mind me jumping in ?
To understand the thread (and to answer that question) you need a little bit of background.
UCET (the club the OP and myself are members of) has only a modest membership and far less available funds than the BCA.
Club Subscriptions are now due (probably the same for most clubs) and we were discussing what we could do to help our members since they have not been able to ?go caving? much over the last year and it doesn?t seem likely (here in Wales anyway) that caving will be permitted for some time to come.
We therefore feel that the club?s request for caving subs will be met with apathy and we believe our modest membership will reduce. This position may well be mirrored within many other caving clubs across the UK.
So, in an effort to give something back to our members (and help protect our numbers) we are considering foregoing the club subscriptions this year.
However, the BCA insurance still needs addressing and (as things stand) we may still have to ask members for at least that amount. There was a moot that the club might pay the insurance FOR the members (which would secure 100% of the numbers) but this would cost a small fortune. Even though the insurance is only ?17 (a paltry amount as suggested by someone else) it becomes a much bigger number when it is multiplied by the number of members of the (your) club.
The OP?s question really centres on, ?What can the BCA do to help us retain our membership? (for all UK clubs) specifically with regards to ?costs? for a sport that has been plagued with restrictions.
I hope that offers some clarity, it was an honestly well-intentioned question.
Ian