Page 1 of 2
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:02 pm
by andya
Just having a look .. I'm sure it will continue the debate ...
http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/committee/ ... lendar.pdf
Just a quick question ...
Lee Valley = Broxbourne? = Dobbs Weir ?? = Somewhere else????
Good to see Dobbs and possibly Ironbridge back ... good news!
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:11 pm
by Anne
Lee Valley is the new name for Broxbourne. The origional site was at Broxbourne but the site evetually ended up being about 4 miles away so the name was changed to avoid confusion.
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:35 pm
by Mr Munchkin
Hi Andy,
The Lea Valley div 2/3s are proposed for the Intermediate Course at the Lea Valley White Water Centre. Discussions are ongoing with regards the details but it all looks good so far.
I agree it is nice to see some different sites (re)appearing too! Well done folks!
Andy
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:21 pm
by Carlr
Oooops i forgot to apply for Harefield for 2011!!
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:46 pm
by General Flangecustard
Only two divsion 1 doubles in 2011? 
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:42 pm
by Meg
Only two divsion 1 doubles in 2011?
That is pretty disappointing.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:59 am
by andya
Mr Munchkin wrote:Hi Andy,
The Lea Valley div 2/3s are proposed for the Intermediate Course at the Lea Valley White Water Centre. Discussions are ongoing with regards the details but it all looks good so far.
Hi Andy,
I'd be interested in how the discussion go regarding using LVWWC for a Div 2/3. Particularly how the pump time is funded.
I'd be happy to help organise a D2/3 at CIWW, if we could find a funding model that would support say 4-6 Cum pumptime. (or say a D1 on 8 Cum)
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:16 pm
by Flipper
My quick estimates are that the electricity bill for Lea Valley "A" on 8 cumecs should be around £300-£350; for the short course on 4 cumecs its about £70. That's just pumping costs for a 6 hour day. I don't know what other costs the centre would need to cover. I think the charges from Nene 2/3 and Cardiff P/1 were significantly higher than these estimates.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:03 pm
by jsrevell
Meg wrote:Only two divsion 1 doubles in 2011?
That is pretty disappointing.
We are also disappointed that the proposed number of Div1 double events has been reduced.
It would be great to see more Div 1 / Div 2 event doubles (or at least the same as 2008 and 2009) as this would:
keep the travel costs down;
give the competitors more exposure to the slalom site;
help reduce the demand on volunteers;
reduce pollution
and
could help maintain / incease revenues for clubs and local communities.
Happy to help.
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:05 pm
by Alison
Where does the 16 come from at the bottom of the div 1 list? I can only count 13 races.
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:58 pm
by GlennRoberts
Manchester Canoe club were told we were not allowed to hold our usual 1/2 Double in May 2011. This is disappointing both for next year and the future, as there is no guarentee we'll have the volunteer support necessary for future years.
We were told instead that we could hold the event at the beginning of the year (March?) or pay £8000 for the privilege in June/July, neither of which we consider to be viable. We believe that the absence of such an event at a warm time of the year will harm people's development in the sport.
I 100% understand the importance for these venues to be commercially viable, but believe that some provision needs to be made in the summer months to enable this venue to be used for what it was designed, i.e. a slalom course. I am sure HPP could cope with not running rafting on at least one weekend in the summer without losing significant income. Am I wrong? Who has the power to lobby for such a change in policy?
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:56 pm
by PaulBolton
£8000 to hire HPP!!!! I remember as a young slalom paddler doing loads of fund raising events to help the slalom community raise their share of the initial costs. I am increasingly concerned that we are now the group being sidelined - just check the notices regarding when gates can be in the main flow - it seems all other groups get periods of exclusive use apart from the slalom users. I am also surprised this unfortunate situation for MCC and the demand for a huge amount of money could occur with no minuted discussions at committee level?
I also hope more double events are in the final calendar as I think I'll struggle to make single events for me, get Joe to Div 2s and support my daughter's very expensive sport.
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:50 pm
by Munchkin
Who so you guys think should pay the hire costs? I agree that we shouldn't be expected to pay so much but HPP is now run as a commercial business, so they can charge what they like. We can complain, but in the meantime someone will have to pay...
The slalom committee? Err, the pot is empty, the cupboards are bare... The paddlers? Are we not already complaining about how much the sport costs? Sponsorship? Bingo! Now who has time to go and sort that out? Who should be responsible for it???
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:05 pm
by Meg
Yes, I would agree that the cost of travelling, especially with high fuel prices, makes single events unattractive (if not cost prohibitive in some cases)
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:06 pm
by davebrads
HPP was built with mostly public money from the Sports Council (plus a contribution from paddlers) to provide a world class slalom training site. To find that it has been appropriated for commercial use is disgusting - it could only happen in the UK.
I can't believe the hire costs reflect the cost of running the course - there are no pump charges, they only need to provide a couple of staff to mind the office. The hire costs reflect the loss of income from rafting, and the needs of canoe slalom (and in fact any use of the centre as a sporting venue) should override the needs of commercial rafting.