So Forestry England are looking to increase the costs charged to external providers (Coaches, Clubs and Event Organisers), which means that as an MTB Coach I'll have to potentially put up prices or swallow the hit on profits that will go to FE. I purposely keep my prices low to make Coaching accessible to all.
Also as a volunteer coach for the local club we might have to look at increasing either membership or session costs.
This appears to be a wholesale change without any consultation - please read below and if you can sign & support the petition.
Comments are super important too. It’s your chance to say why mountain bike coaching cannot be pushed out of the forests - or operate without permissions and subsequently not be insured......
Please keep sharing to your pages and groups.
——————
IMPORTANT!
PLEASE READ, SIGN AND SHARE.
We don’t ask very often but we need your help.
We try to keep our course fees as low as possible but still be able to pay all our business fees and actually take a full wage each month (which doesn’t happen very often, especially through winter months).
Many of you may not know but to legally coach on a site coaching companies MUST have permission by the land owner which usually encures a fee either annually or quaterly.
If there is no permission there is no insurance (this is usually when you see very cheap coaching courses being provided, so be aware and always ask to see the legals).
Unfortunately, we now have 2 barrels aimed at our heads - this will effect ALL professional coaching companies who use FE sites.
An increase to a 20% charge would simply put us out of business. You, the customer already have huge living costs and so do we too… We simply couldn’t pass this cost forward and certainly can’t absorb any more price rises.
So please, take 2 seconds to sign this petition. Numbers speak volumes.
We’re not asking it to be free but to be fair for us all.
Please share and hopefully we can make an impact before we all loose what we have worked so hard to create.
The link is below, thank you advance for standing and supporting professional coaching companies out there.
Emotive issue this - use of public space by companies. A lot of Local Authorities are trying to get fitness businesses to pay into park maintenance. The counter argument being it is owned by the people using their service!
How much in cash terms are we talking here, rather than percentages? Ball park will do if you don't want your finances too public.
The counter argument being it is owned by the people using their service!
That's a good one! I'll sack off my home office and use a desk at the Local Council offices then. 🤣
That’s a good one! I’ll sack off my home office and use a desk at the Local Council offices then
I am off to commandeer the snow plough as a commuting wagon.
How much was it before and how was it configured? Was it a flat yearly fee or per use?
It sounds rubbish unless it was annual and you were only coaching now and again when it gets more expensive pro rata.
How are they going to police it anyway? Will you have to sign in every use or have an open books policy?
The other question is what is commercial?
A charity event such as:
- a charity fundraising marathon for hundreds of participants, organised by a commercial company on behalf of the charity?
- a local community organised and run outdoor concert for a few hundred, but with no entry fee?
- a small group in a mental health and wellbeing programme, who meet weekly to walk and talk?
- a private company taking a teacher and class out for an outdoor learning event?
@midlifecrashes
How much in cash terms are we talking here, rather than percentages? Ball park will do if you don’t want your finances too public.
Fair comment.
My costs (can't speak for any other coaches etc.) aren't as much as some as I do it as a part-time/side job and charge less.
At the moment FE take 12-15% depending on whether it's peak or off-peak (weekday vs weekend) of any courses (income) i declare to them at the end of each month - this is then worked out by FE and I get a bill at the end of the quarter.
So for example if I run a course with 5 people @ £70 each that's £350 I declare to FE - I'll get a bill for either £43.75 or £52.50 at the end of the quarter if that's the only course I run.
Now regardless of whether I run that course peak or off-peak under the new structure I'll be billed £70.
Yes I'll have still made money, but I also have to pay them £100/year for permissions and resubmit Risk assessments & emergency plans every 6 months, pay my Insurance, Website hosting, requalification (first aid & safeguarding etc), BC & MIAS fees etc. and anything else.
At the moment as I only do it part time I usually break even, to continue to do this I'll have to increase my course fees by the appropriate amount - which I don't really want to do if I can help it.
The 'bigger boys' who do it full time and charge more than me 9most seem to be around (£120/person for a half day) will obviously have to take the 20% hit - which for them if they put their course fees up starts to make it unsustainable as a business as they already charge a premium.
For me it's (hopefully) not going to make a huge difference, but what it will do is also bring in the element of not seeking/paying for permission which then puts the provider on a massively sticky wicket insurance wise - which then has the impact on the poor sod who unfortunately has to try and claim against that coach/company only to find out they aren't insured as they don't have the relevant permissions.
Bearing in mind this isn't just about coaches it will impact race events etc, and lets face it race fees aren't exactly cheap at the moment for regional or national events....
Can't comment on the other types of events as I don't know how they charge for a large charity event etc, I can only comment on the situation for coaching/guiding and MTB/CX races etc.
My costs (can’t speak for any other coaches etc.) aren’t as much as some as I do it as a part-time/side job and charge less.
/outdoor instructor hat on
A side issue I know, but please can we not undercut and undervalue other providers because it is a 'sideline' and you have other income. It is not fair and makes the industry unsustainable.
/end rant
For commercial use I would say that it would be good thing to push the prices up. I would apply that to any company using a national resource for their own gain.
Thank you for outlining it so clearly, in your OP the 20% charge was mentioned but it wasn't clear that was straight off the course fee per student, rather than onto some otherwise named charge to use the forest. So for your hypothetical 5 student course on a weekend you're down £17.50 compared to previously.
Nothing is getting cheaper these days, with the exception of the fire sales as bike businesses compete for who can go bankrupt quickest this year. Like maintenance in bike shops, it's the person on the ground delivering the service that can't be landed in a box from China, where we all need to make a bunch more year on year just to eat and pay the gas bill and so much has gone up double digit percentages since Covexit. I guess Forestry wants to pay their bills too without looking for bigger government grants and the squeeze comes from all sides
As for the little guy vs big outdoor centre, I don't see it as much different to getting a cheaper deal by hiring in a plasterer for a job, rather than a full service construction company, I don't need to pay for managers, admin and overheads if both me and the worker know our task and have correct insurance and paperwork. Admittedly the only times I did a course we were all on 26ers, so times ought to have changed, but looking at Dalby centre the rates for half day seem really low, and training is money better spent than bling bikes.
I'm rambling now, petition signed. Grassroots coaching and groups matter however funded, and need a place it can happen.
"That’s a good one! I’ll sack off my home office and use a desk at the Local Council offices then"
At least that'll make 1 person in there that is doing something productive 👍
"A side issue I know, but please can we not undercut and undervalue other providers because it is a ‘sideline’ and you have other income. It is not fair and makes the industry unsustainable.'
Wonder if Waitrose will come out with that line against the folks at the end of my road selling surplus eggs, rhubarb and honey from their smallholding and allotment.
@matt_outandabout I understand your point, but I don't under cut because it's part time/side line.
I offer cheaper prices to try and make it more accessible to those that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford coaching.
Anyway the point being FE are putting costs up for outdoor instructors & activities and let's not forget the increase in parking costs, yes it costs them to maintain and run the forest etc, but there's only so much price increase that most people can take.....
I offer cheaper prices to try and make it more accessible to those that otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford coaching.
Spot on. My side hustle is at a cut price to help out hobbyists. Happy to do that. I make a few quid, get some pleasure out of it and my customers benefit. A win for all.
/outdoor instructor hat on
A side issue I know, but please can we not undercut and undervalue other providers because it is a ‘sideline’ and you have other income. It is not fair and makes the industry unsustainable.
/end rant
That is pretty much the outdoor instructor business, 2/3 or all instructors are working for peanuts to gain enough experience to become professional, even though there are not and never has been enough business to support them all.
Many moons ago I was thinking about becoming one, but I realised that unless you were good enough to become a UIAGM Guide, life as an MIC would be pretty tough (and I wasn't good enough to become a Guide).
NB Since the introduction of digital cameras, the bottom has fallen out of the photographer market. Most 'pros' I follow seem to make money out running courses to teach people how to be a 'pro'. The actual number of real pros, is tiny. I used to photograph events and just give my photos away as I couldn't be bothered to charge for them, I only did it when a magazine etc insisted as they wanted to own copyright or a licence.
Charge £80 per person and have a minimum of 5 people or course doesn’t run.
End user is still getting an MTB course at a big discount. And how many of your hobbyist customers are turning up on £250 Halfords BSO’s. I bet not many.
MTBers are notorious cheapskates though
"I'm not paying £40 for a tyre" on my £5000 bicycle
"£25 is too much to get a headset swapped" on my £6000 ebike
Etc etc and infinitum.
I was impressed this week when I was charged £50 for a MTB job. "That's our minimum for putting it up in the stand" I thought, good in you lads, you've got to pay the bills as much as the next person
My LBS charges £25 an hour, he's a one man band, but has a high street presence, so rent can't be that cheap.
At £25/hour I hope he’s charging full r.r.p. for parts otherwise he’ll have to work a lot of hours or may not be there much longer!!
That's the issue isn't it £25 an hour with premises, insurance, heating and lights is just buttons in his pocket.
But MTBers like I say are not great at getting their wallets out, well they are, just not always in a way that directly benefits the industry and people like the coaches working in it.
At £25/hour I hope he’s charging full r.r.p. for parts otherwise he’ll have to work a lot of hours or may not be there much longer!!
I assume so, he seems to sell a fair number of bikes. Cambridge is very bike centric.
But I do wonder what he actually nets - £10 an hour?
NB He mainly sells town bikes and a few Gravel bikes, nothing over £1500.
MTBers are notorious cheapskates though
“I’m not paying £40 for a tyre” on my £5000 bicycle
“£25 is too much to get a headset swapped” on my £6000 ebike
"I'm not paying £20 to park at the trail centre whose purpose built trails I will ride on my £5k mountain bike, let some poor instructor pay for it while I park on the verge".
As a public servant and user of public services, I appreciate how under funded they are and how desperate they are to find revenue to keep functioning, but it's harsh on small businesses trying to be fair to their own customers.
Just for info FE is approx 80% self funded from income from trading activity. They need to be financially sustainable much like anyone else. The govt now only put in approx 20% and that’s likely to decrease. Everything’s gone up, energy, gravel, toilet paper; everything wears out, fees have to go up to keep things sustainable.
On the subject of commercial use of a national resource, if I wasn't on a course I'd still be there riding the trails on my own. None of the value I'm paying the provider for is for access to the trails.
But I see that the provider is gaining value from being able to run the course on the national resource. However they simply pass the cost on to me as a client. I've done a £130 all-day peak time course, which if it had been in England, I wouldn't agree with £19.50 (at current rates) of that being my payment for riding somewhere I can already ride for free.
That's fair though, is it not? They're deriving an income from someone else's resource, national or not. Surely the owner of the resource has the right to demand a 'rent' from anyone that uses their property to derive an income whether or not they allow free access to recreational users? And let's not fall down the folly of declaring it 'as yours because you pay tax'. Surely you would expect to pay something to host an event in a park, so why not in a Forest?
Yes but no but... 😉 Can't make up my mind really. I get that if they didn't charge, they'd need to raise the funds by other means (such as taxes or spending less on other things), or cut the bills (e.g. maintenance).
I agree with charging someone to use the forest to derive an income. However the provider is just passing on that cost to me, so effectively the FC is charging me to use the forest, which I already have the right to free of charge.
they tried to do this when i ran a coaching company.
fc didn't follow through with it and seemed like other fc areas just pulled a number out of the air. i kept quiet and they went away, my insurance was still valid.
my thoughts are that they should just charge a flat rate licence fee for providers not a percentage.
@bobbyspangles hi Alex, unfortunately my insurance has a specific clause regarding land owners permission, plus FE have been pretty $hit hot on "unlicensed" coaching.
In fairness the FE team on the Chase are now pretty helpful - they were against anyone who wasn't BC for a while (before & after CW games due to funding from BC and trying to get a resident BC coach) and it was a bit of a battle to begin with.
It's also a bit crap that you need to apply for permission to each site - I've been asked if I can coach at Pines a couple of times but declined as can't be bothered with having to jump through hoops with a different FE office and pay another fee.
It's worse for the bigger guys (thinking Wye MTB & others) as they have coaches, guides & staff to pay - unlike the little sole trader like me.
Anyway it's your fault I have all this hassle - if I hadn't been coached by you I wouldn't have gone into it lol (Chris)
All the points above by others regarding paying to use a 'free forest' I get, but also they have to generate income some how, and not just from chopping down trees & flogging the timber.
As coaches & riders its just frustrating that we pay for parking, pay for permission, give them a % and don't see anything invested back (other than a new car parking system and increased parking costs) - we (well I do) play ball by promoting the FE 'Responsible Cycling' agenda by discouraging 'off-piste' riding etc.
Other than Perry's trail (which was partly BC and CW games funded) there hasn't been any investment in the trails, which again is frustrating as we're trying to encourage riders to use the facilities.....
FE have volunteer workers. As one who has put in a significant number of hours I can't help but reflect on the fact that I've never seen the local coach with a mattoc in his hand. I imagine he feels he doesn't need to as he's paying for use of the forest. Not something I have a problem with but it works both ways.
"can we not undercut and undervalue other providers"
Maybe The State could set prices for everything.
I suspect FE have volunteer workers as they have decided they don't want to pay wages for permanent staff...absolutely not defending FE here, but they have (or maybe had) a remit to allow recreation on 'their' land - despite the land being managed for the people, the reality is it isn't the public's. From what I've read and heard elsewhere, FE have now had almost all their recreational bits removed and told to focus on timber production - rising costs and falling budgets have meant things need to get tightened.
We keep hearing about all these things that need to be paid for by the FE - I'm not arguing that they have to pay for stuff, but they do seem to get themselves in knots about being the ones in control of everything, so it becomes such a massive headache for suppliers for the recreational stuff, that the quality starts to slide as fewer people/companies want to get involved.
Upping the price sounds 'reasonable' for the bigger companies, but I know of many single-person companies who will be struggling with this cost.
I don't quite understand how things work in Government/Councils, but we do appear to have an abundance of money to pay to go to war for and with other countries, but we don't seem to have the money to solve many of the poverty issues - aware I'm straying a wee bit - if poverty and public services are suffering then it isn't any wonder why recreation in Forestry is also suffering. Better funding models for long-term usage are required, plenty of funding grants have been given for the build of new stuff, but very little seems to be considered for the on-going maintenance and long-term usage of the projects.
Things are so expensive that many people/companies aren't willing to commit or pay the pricing, which means everyone suffers somewhere down the line. I'm against the increase, but unfortunately can see the issue happening that means prices are rising.
I don’t buy the idea that forests need managing. It’s the natural state of our landscape.
Forestry England exists to maintain Forestry England. The charges are to support them not the trees. The organisation gets bigger and bigger and needs more income to support itself.
Forests in England are a scarce resource and should be valued as forests, not a source of fence posts and wood chips - they can come somewhere like Scandinavia that has endless natural resources.
Forests in England are a scarce resource
...many forests are there for farming. They need to managed. Those rows and rows of pine trees didn't set themselves naturally in nice straight lines!
We should let everything "rewild" itself to save the planet so it all looks like a giant tussocky bramble bush.
Agreed - in olden times the forests were wild and unkempt, then we came along and started using the raw material...over time it started to get 'managed' as we needed the materials for doing stuff. Managing forests now seems to just be terrible Sitka Spruce being planted and farmed and then used for 'stuff'. Sitka Spruce grows quickly and it pretty straight, but our climate means it isn't as good quality as Scandinavian Spruce (which seems to grow slower and for longer).
Forestry now just seems to be about farming this resource - felling and selling, then replanting and growing.
I suspect it is more complicated than that, but I doubt it needs to be any more than that! So Forestry are now not really bothered about recreation as it isn't something that they are responsible for, they are now back to focussing on farming woodland (I now can't find the article I read a few weeks back that said that Forestry had budget and remit cut and recreation was no longer part of their remit, so my biased look is based on that (and other things), so likely to be well off).
Recreational stuff should be getting encouraged as much as possible, raising fees (for no apparent gain/improvement) isn't going to be doing that. At the same time, the public do seem to have a view that they shouldn't need to be paying anything for this access, so it is very easy to see where the gaps grow! (I'm not for raising fees, but also aware that things can't be for free given how much budgets are getting cut everywhere)
Agreed – in olden times the forests were wild and unkempt, then we came along and started using the raw material
Forests* in all but really ancient times were managed to some degree or another. Lots of coppicing, careful management of oak and other vital resources. If anything management was more important in the past than now.
*This is assuming the modern definition rather than the olden times definition of an area under special laws.
Yeah, I said a similar thing right after the bit you quoted...as soon as we discovered wood was useful for things we started 'managing' woodland.
That’s a good one! I’ll sack off my home office and use a desk at the Local Council offices
have you applied for change of use now you are usung your home as a business and paying the appropriate taxes?
Better funding models for long-term usage are required, plenty of funding grants have been given for the build of new stuff, but very little seems to be considered for the on-going maintenance and long-term usage of the projects.
Most grants are awarded on the basis of creating something sustainable, however very few mountain bike venues/projects have ever attained that.
Take something like the latest white elephant MTB Innovation Hub in Innerleithen, there is no way that would ever be commercially viable, yet figures get manipulated to make it appear as though it will.
There is some rubbish spouted on here. Some facts:
FE (part of Forestry Commission) exists as after the 1st World War the tree cover in the uk was reduced to 5%. The FC was set up to grow a strategic reserve of timber in case of another war. They did this and grew it to the current figure of 13% by planting public forests and grant aiding private landowners to do the same.
All the timber FE produce is sustainable and is independently audited as so. They were the first state forest service in the world to achieve this on their entire estate. Simply leaving man made forests to go wild will generally mean less biodiversity and looking to less sustainable places to harvest timber such as from semi natural forests for example which may not be so sustainably managed. Better to harvest fenceposts and chip wood from forests grown especially for that purpose than to harvest it from semi natural forests somewhere else.
Forestry England have a huge recreation remit, it's more important now than it ever has been, Dick Barton is absolutely wrong in most of what he says in previous posts. Forestry England is probably the largest provider of outdoor recreation in the country. From the corporate plan "Growing the future":
We will continue to provide first-class outdoor experiences in the nation’s forests with excellent customer service.
Our expert sustainable forest, land and recreation management allows us to expand and improve our offer: attracting more people to enjoy places we look after across the whole country, in every season.
More people will be able to experience the benefits as we grow the opportunities for deeper connection including quality volunteering programmes, social prescribing, a national membership scheme and supporter engagement.
There is something for everyone, including our rich and varied arts programmes, sports and physical activities, historical sites, and a mindful connection for enjoyment, health and wellbeing.
Like I said above FE only gets approx 20% of the funds that it needs to tread water from the govt. The other 80% is generated from selling timber, car park revenue, cafe concession income, property income, tenants like Go-ape, permissions, memberships etc. It's adverse portfolio that Fe are trying to diversify even more to protect themselves from further govt funding cuts.
On free public access, yep, that is free and FE are obligated to do this as the whole estate (that is owned) is dedicated under CROW. Things like bike trails, cafes, toilets, car parks, walking trails, picnic sites etc aren't an obligation and they need to be sustainable if they exist and that means they need to be paid for.
If you want to find out more try this: https://www.forestryengland.uk/growing-the-future
Worth a 5 minute read to clear up some of the rubbish spouted on this thread.
have you applied for change of use now you are usung your home as a business and paying the appropriate taxes?
Nope, because I'm not, and therefore don't need to. I did get a few quid back though because I had to work from home however.
@moab - I assume like FLS, FE have defined rules defining events, commercial use etc. if FLS get away with charging small events and demanding 6 months notice in a world with Land Reform - I’m sure FE can create a set of rules!
Now regardless of whether I run that course peak or off-peak under the new structure I’ll be billed £70.
Seems a bargain compared to the cost of the buying your own woodland thread!
Yes I’ll have still made money, but I also have to pay them £100/year for permissions and resubmit Risk assessments & emergency plans every 6 months, pay my Insurance, Website hosting, requalification (first aid & safeguarding etc), BC & MIAS fees etc. and anything else.
most of that is a cost of doing professional business in a moderate risk setting, it’s not an FE cost and you’d still need to do it in a world like Scotland where access for coaching is FOC.
At the moment as I only do it part time I usually break even, to continue to do this I’ll have to increase my course fees by the appropriate amount – which I don’t really want to do if I can help it.
almost everyone coming on your course will have benefitted from some sort of wage inflation since you set your prices.
The ‘bigger boys’ who do it full time and charge more than me 9most seem to be around (£120/person for a half day) will obviously have to take the 20% hit – which for them if they put their course fees up starts to make it unsustainable as a business as they already charge a premium.
your logic doesn’t really make sense. They will either swallow it because their margins are already high enough or they’ll pass it on, part of that will depend what competitors do. I’m not sure how price sensitive the market is - if they put prices up and some can’t afford that does it not bring you a funnel of people who want your slightly more affordable service?
Dick - post the article up here when you find it, I’d be interested to see where it came from and when. Useful to do a bit of fact checking these days by doing a quick google and checking the corporate plan perhaps before propagating the misinformation. Not everything you read on the internet is true! 😉
I will, but I'm now concerned it was a post on here in response to something about services being cut. Which would be even worse as that wouldn't even be an article!
I'm feeling rather foolish about this as I've clearly got several things completely mixed up!
Good on you for holding your hands up.
It gets worse...I think I've found it, but it is a comment on the Welsh centres and it is absolutely nothing to do with FE and also doesn't say their recreational remit has been removed. I've clearly skim read it whilst doing something else and then decided myself what I thought I'd read.
Total nonsense from me, sorry...I'm going to return to posting up quick 'comic' responses for a while.