MR : Away Day 2002

Committee Away Day 2002

Will Rainey reports back from the committee's annual 'think tank' - Spring 2002

Introduction

The Committee held its annual "think tank" review of life, the universe and everything at the beginning of January, and in addition to training, which I covered in my opening remarks, we also had some excellent discussions on the following topics:

Championship venues
Salcombe Week formats
Potential rule changes
Finances

Championship venues

As many of you are aware, we are planning to return to Abersoch in 2003, with a second visit to Looe lined up for 2004, but where after that? Following the very helpful discussion at the AGM last year and some good input from Pete Vincent at the RYA Classes' Conference, the Committee has given some careful thought as to what makes a really good championship (both on and off the water). Broadly, we came down in favour of a preferred list of Tenby, Whitstable, Abersoch and Looe. but with the thought that we should investigate both Lyme Regis and St Mawes as possibilities for 2005 and 2006. We are on the case! Again, all feedback is welcome.

Salcombe Week 2002

The Committee spent some time reviewing the proposed arrangements for Salcombe Week, and fairly quickly came to the conclusion that the Gold/Silver fleet system introduced last year had worked pretty well. In particular, we had received some excellent feedback from those that had really enjoyed their racing in the top half of the Silver fleet.

We probably need to work with the Club to find a better way to distinguishing boats in the first race from those in the second, but that should be relatively easy to fix. Other than that it will be the same again.

Potential rule changes

We received a number of suggestions as to possible rule changes from members, and each of these proposals was looked at in detail at the Away Day. Some of these changes, such as revising the rise of floor measurement and reducing the maximum weight, were designed to encourage development. Others, however, were designed to restrict some of the benefits obtained by newer boats through better weight distribution, and lighter foils and rigs. As much as anything our consideration of these proposals comes down to a question of philosophy. Do we expect Merlins designed and built twenty years ago to compete on level terms with newer boats, or do we, as a successful restricted development class, accept that life moves on. In the main, I think our view is that life moves on and, indeed, the class would have stagnated without the development we have seen over the last twenty years.

Three suggestions were made in relation to controlling the weight distribution or the all up weight of the boat, and it is probably worth dealing with each of them in turn.

1. Controlling weight distribution through the use of swing tests.
This has been looked at before and at that time the concern was that the measurement process was relatively complicated and unless the test was conducted indoors, it was very difficult to obtain reliable and consistent readings. We did agree, however, that it would make sense to consult the RYA to see whether the debate has moved on in other classes.

2. Controlling weight distribution by requiring correctors to be fitted to the transom or by having a maximum amount for correctors.
A number of other classes, such as the Solo, have gone down this route, but experience shows that it merely encourages builders to find ways of building weight into the boat to avoid the need for official correctors. We were therefore not in favour of such a move.

3. Controlling the all up weight of the hull, rig and foils.
This suggestion raised two principal concerns. Firstly, we believe that this would be a very difficult rule to enforce in practice as a simple change from a Dacron mainsail to a Mylar one, for example, or from a lifting rudder to a fixed one would require the boat to be reweighed. Secondly, concern was expressed that such a move would increase the overall weight of the newer boats, which would reverse the developments of recent years, and make the boat less attractive to potential recruits to the class. Again, the Committee did not feel that this was the right route to go down.

The other suggestions we received were as follows:

Reducing the rise of floor measurement.
This is the rule that controls the waterline width at mid length, and it had been suggested that the width should be reduced to encourage further hull development. The Committee was not in favour of this proposal as it would almost certainly make every existing boat uncompetitive at a stroke and would undo much of the good work achieved over the last few years in encouraging builders to invest in the tooling needed for FRP construction. It could also have the effect of making the boats less manageable in a breeze.

Reducing the minimum weight of the hull by, say, 10 kilograms over 5 years.
Whilst in some ways such a move would be attractive, as it would emphasise the development nature of the class, and would help make the Merlins more competitive against other classes, the Committee felt that there were was an insufficient number of boats that could remove that amount of weight at the present time. However, we would welcome feedback as to whether at some point in the future this could be the right move to make.

Finances and Subscription Levels

The Association is in a relatively strong position financially. We have achieved modest surpluses in both the last two years, and we continue to hold a healthy level of reserves. However, we have become more and more dependent on advertising revenue, sales of shirts, interest income and successful championships to maintain that position, with our subscription income, over the years, making up a smaller and smaller proportion of our total revenue. In simple terms, we believe we have reached the point where it is not prudent to rely on these other variable sources of income to the extent we do, given that they often depend on the efforts of only one or two individuals.

You can probably see where we are heading. You guessed it. Yes, the Committee believes that the time is now right to be looking at an increase in subscription levels for 2003 (for the first time for ten years!) and a proposal to this effect will be put to the membership at the AGM in August. We realistically have two options. We could go from the current level of �20 for full members and �12 for associates, to �25 and �15 (which given current membership levels would raise subscriptions by just under �2,500), or go to �30 and �20 (which would raise just over �5,000). Such an increase would certainly be in line with the subscriptions charged by a number of other classes that we have surveyed. The Committee is also keen to avoid the need to come back to the members in two or three years time with a further increase, and given our plans to extend our promotional and training activities, there is a strong preference amongst the Committee to go to the higher level. However, we would like your feedback before we finalise our thoughts.

Incidentally, our survey of other classes showed that a number of them are now making crew membership compulsory. We have considered this, but we do not believe that this is the right route to go down if we want to continue to attract new members to the class, many of who start as crews.