questionnaire

sam said:

I'm writing a story about safe cycling, and am looking for people who
1) don't mind answering some questions, and 2) don't mind being quoted.
If you're in London and not camera shy, please let me know. The
questionnaire is over here: http://tinyurl.com/83993. If you don't like
the forum format, you can simply email me at the address listed there.
Thanks to any who reply.

If you want to photograph cycle training in a London school, drop me
an email.

[email hidden]

(Delete spam=buster to reply)

Tilly said:

If you want to photograph cycle training in a London school, drop me
an email.

Thanks, Tilly.

As it happens I spent all day last Monday with Cycle Training UK, a
not-for-profit London outfit which pitches instruction to schools,
organisations of all types (including local authorities, some of whom
don't like the fact that they don't require the use of helmets), and
individuals. I attended their new 'Faster Commuter' course, which
they're rolling out in a bid to attract cyclists who would like to
brush up on their cyclecraft.

Sam
--
http://www.bikereader.com

sam said:

As it happens I spent all day last Monday with Cycle Training UK, a
not-for-profit London outfit which pitches instruction to schools

I wonder why CTUK feels the need to advertise itself as a
*not-for-profit* organisation.

Is it so that when someone hands their £27.50 over to CTUK for an hour
long lesson they can be confident that the instructor is making the
money not the organisation? Unfortunately not. CTUK instructors are
paid £12 per hour.

Tilly said:

sam said:

As it happens I spent all day last Monday with Cycle Training UK, a
not-for-profit London outfit which pitches instruction to schools

I wonder why CTUK feels the need to advertise itself as a
*not-for-profit* organisation.

Is it so that when someone hands their £27.50 over to CTUK for an

hour

Quoted message said:

long lesson they can be confident that the instructor is making the
money not the organisation? Unfortunately not. CTUK instructors are
paid £12 per hour.

I don't know. I'll ask them. btw, could you email me? Just turn the 'w'
upside-down. I'm too stupid to figure out how to email you.

Sam
---
http://www.bikereader.com

Tilly said:

I wonder why CTUK feels the need to advertise itself as a
*not-for-profit* organisation.

Is it so that when someone hands their £27.50 over to CTUK for an hour
long lesson they can be confident that the instructor is making the
money not the organisation? Unfortunately not. CTUK instructors are
paid £12 per hour.

You are not familiar with the difference between gross profit and net
profit then? Where does the money come from to run the organisation, do
the advertising etc etc or do the instructors do everything themselves
for their £12?

Tony

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:54:59 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tilly said:

I wonder why CTUK feels the need to advertise itself as a
*not-for-profit* organisation.

Is it so that when someone hands their £27.50 over to CTUK for an hour
long lesson they can be confident that the instructor is making the
money not the organisation? Unfortunately not. CTUK instructors are
paid £12 per hour.

You are not familiar with the difference between gross profit and net
profit then? Where does the money come from to run the organisation, do
the advertising etc etc or do the instructors do everything themselves
for their £12?

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit, especially when 50% or so is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a profit
than their advertising and other agencies.

I work for a not-for-profit organisation: a state school.

In message <[email hidden]>, Tilly
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:54:59 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tilly said:

I wonder why CTUK feels the need to advertise itself as a
*not-for-profit* organisation.

Is it so that when someone hands their £27.50 over to CTUK for an hour
long lesson they can be confident that the instructor is making the
money not the organisation? Unfortunately not. CTUK instructors are
paid £12 per hour.

You are not familiar with the difference between gross profit and net
profit then? Where does the money come from to run the organisation, do
the advertising etc etc or do the instructors do everything themselves
for their £12?

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit,

Presumably to indicate they are not 'just another company', for the
'feel good about us factor' etc.

Quoted message said:

especially when 50% or so is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a profit
than their advertising and other agencies.

I guess really 'not for profit' is bit of misnomer, I think what is
really meant is not for the profit of shareholders. Any profits they
make presumably being reinvested in the co-op.

Since I've no idea of their cost base, how they apportion the money etc.
ICBA to really speculate on that.

Quoted message said:

I work for a not-for-profit organisation: a state school.

But people know what a state school means on the whole as an
institution, CTUK are presumably trying to differentiate them selves as
an organisation

--
Chris French, Leeds

Tilly said:

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit, especially when 50% or so is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a profit
than their advertising and other agencies.

Quoted message said:

I work for a not-for-profit organisation: a state school.

No you don't. A state school is not a not-for-profit organisation. It
is a grant maintained organisation that receives its income from the
Council and has a lot of its services provided by the Council paid for
by the bit that Government pays to the Councils that they do not pass on
to you. Compare what you get per pupil with what a not-for-profit
public school has to charge just to stay in business and you might
realise how much of the real costs are hidden from you.

Running a profit or a not-for-profit organisation is very different and
a gross margin of 50% is well within bounds for a non-voluntary
not-for-profit.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Tilly said:

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit, especially when 50% or so is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a profit
than their advertising and other agencies.

Quoted message said:

Running a profit or a not-for-profit organisation is very different and
a gross margin of 50% is well within bounds for a non-voluntary
not-for-profit.

Is there a 'legal' definition for a not-for-profit organisation?

John B

JohnB said:

Tony Raven said:

Tilly said:

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit, especially when 50% or so is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a profit
than their advertising and other agencies.

Quoted message said:

Running a profit or a not-for-profit organisation is very different and
a gross margin of 50% is well within bounds for a non-voluntary
not-for-profit.

Is there a 'legal' definition for a not-for-profit organisation?

There is no formal legal definition in the UK, unlike Charities, but
many other countries have legal definitions . They are increasingly
being called social enterprises these days (the DTI even has a social
enterprise strategy!). The common theme is that activities within the
social economy have as their driving force serving the public or member
interest without a profit motive. Not-for-profit doesn't mean it can't
make a profit and indeed generating surpluses in good times to see the
organisation through lean times is good management. But whatever
profits it makes are not distributed to shareholders or trustees but
reinvested for the purposes of the organisation.

Tony

in message <[email hidden]>, JohnB ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Tilly said:

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit, especially when 50% or so
is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a
profit than their advertising and other agencies.

Quoted message said:

Running a profit or a not-for-profit organisation is very different
and a gross margin of 50% is well within bounds for a non-voluntary
not-for-profit.

Is there a 'legal' definition for a not-for-profit organisation?

Yes. No part of the profit is returned to the members or shareholders.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

Tilly said:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:54:59 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tilly said:

I wonder why CTUK feels the need to advertise itself as a
*not-for-profit* organisation.

Is it so that when someone hands their £27.50 over to CTUK for an hour
long lesson they can be confident that the instructor is making the
money not the organisation? Unfortunately not. CTUK instructors are
paid £12 per hour.

You are not familiar with the difference between gross profit and net
profit then? Where does the money come from to run the organisation, do
the advertising etc etc or do the instructors do everything themselves
for their £12?

I understand all that. I just wonder why they feel the need to
advertise themselves as not-for-profit, especially when 50% or so is
taken up in administrative costs. I'd rather see CTUK make a profit
than their advertising and other agencies.

I understand 'not for profit as meaning any surplus money will go to
(1) running and expanding the business (2) paying the office staff and
trainers. There are no outside investors who will get rich if it does
well.

Little if any marketing is done through outside agencies.

The overheads are probably higher than they should be, but it's a very
seasonal business, and the policy is not to lay off staff over the
winter (as a for-profit company would do).

A big part of the hidden costs is training new instructors and
mentoring them until they're fully competent. Instructor turnover is
quite high because it's hard to make a living at it.

Instructors are also paid cycle mileage to and from the lesson.

Colin McKenzie

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:51:05 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

There is no formal legal definition in the UK...

A couple of very informative posts, Tony. Thank you.

Quoted message said:

sam said:

As it happens I spent all day last Monday with Cycle Training UK,
...[attending]... their new 'Faster Commuter' course, which
they're rolling out in a bid to attract cyclists who would like to
brush up on their cyclecraft.

I saw Barry Mason's review of this. Will you be publishing something
on it? Will it be in C+? Will you put anything on BR or here?

Yeah, we took the same class. Incidentally his writeup is over here:
http://tinyurl.com/8qgb3

I'm doing a story for the magazine (don't know exactly when it will
run) and will no doubt tack it up on BR as well.

Here's a short photo essay: http://tinyurl.com/ctgdq

Sam
---
http://www.bikereader.com

Thanks to everyone who replied. There was a good turnout, kicked off by
a chap from Reading.

I'm going to end this with a quick plug for 'another cycling forum',
where the questionnaire appeared. This is the only mention I'll make of
it on this newsgroup, so as not to ruffle any feathers. It's here at
bikereader: http://tinyurl.com/dhvnc There's even a place for DIY
enthusiasts.

I'm off to make some bread.

cheers,
Sam
--