Ringing Forums

The G&B is pretty restrictive over what it gives grants for too. Whilst they give a headline 20%, they only focus on bells and bell fittings, anything else that permits the bells to be rung is not eligible despite the fact that most of it will need to be done to be a successful centre of ringing and learning, e.g. new lighting, decoration, new ladders to get to belfry, new louvers for weatherproofing, sound control, tower steps, handrails, ringing galleries, all excluded.

Leaving the money in the branch is great, but the other added thing about leaving it in the branch is that it's not eligible for gift aid...and yet pretty much all of the £15 could be eligible for gift aid if it was given the BRF...at an extra 25%!! If only the restrictions for giving money were loosened and likewise the percentage of "eligible" project costs given might decrease, there would be little need to keep money in the branch and more benefits realised. A lot of ringing associations are extremely tight with their money and spend hours debating even the smallest sums, yet in the real world, the money changing hands is a pittance.

and yet pretty much all of the £15 could be eligible for gift aid if it was given the BRF...at an extra 25%!! — Philip Pratt

are you saying we only claim gift aid on the BRF bit? Whilst that does encourage that strategy (i.e. stick as much in as you can to maximise the additional cash) it could lead to there being not enough money to do anything else with... And, lots of money in a bell fund just sitting there earning a bit of interest.

btw this is not a G&B discussion, interested in what other associations do :-)

Perhaps only the BRF is a registered charity and the general fund is not?

Yes. The rules around gift aid can be a bit funny, like with going to a national trust property, you have to pay 10% more than the normal entry price for the whole of your entry fee to qualify for Gift aid and it has to be to a registered charity (which the most BRFs are, but the Associations
are not) but generally if it's made as a donation with nothing in return I believe it qualifies, so the £12 to the general fund could qualify.

Some associations as a whole are charities, such as the Peterborough DG, so all our subs can be gift aided. A few years ago it was I think easier to set this up than now. Quite a while back a number of people wanted to do the same for the Ely, but it never happened.

Also, with the ELY, no money from subs stays in the branch. And money the branches have Congress from money they raise themselves - raffles, profits from refreshments etc. Expenses are paid centrally, and very few grants are paid, despite saying money is available for small things like stays, so at the end of the year we end up transferring money to the central bell fund

There are a number of issues here.
1. Bells needs matinenace as well as capital investment and many assoc only seem to fund the latter. I wouod actually suggest widening the criteria to include this wouod actually be better use of money. The current models are the equilivant of buying a car then doing nothing to it until it (prematurely) falls apart then rebuilding it.
2. We should invest equally, if not more in training and PR than we do in maintenence. Most assoc seem to lack any form of meaningful training budget or have any criteria of how to spend it.
3. I play in several amateur and semi-professional musical outfits. I expect to pay between 10 and 40 per month to enable these places to invest in music, publicity and recruitment. Why are ringers so cheap?
4. I have often wondered if a more central model of funding might be more effective. If there was direct CC membership, then admin costs would be reduced and arguably bell funds wouid distribute more of the money they are given. Furthermore, a central fund might be better able to attract significant campaign funding or sponsorship in a way local.assoc cannot, thus further increasing access to training resource and funding.

I think looking at how individual assoc spend the odd quid here are therr is rearranging deck chairs on thr titanic - what is needed is better strategic and more centralised invested and a proper strategy of how to invest in ringing nationally. In my opinion.

In the W&P Full subs are now £15 per member (435 in 2020); £12.50 per over 60 member (669 in 2020); £10 for Ringing Members in full-time education (83 in 2020) and £2 for Probationary members (98 in 2020)

£4 of each subscription (other than from Probationary Members) goes to the BRF

£1 of each subscription (other than from Probationary Members) is transferred the Guild Training and Development Fund.

70% of the balance goes to the Guild General fund

30% is retained by the Districts

In my experience it can be very difficult to get Districts to spend the money that they hold in their District Funds. We've had arguments about whether we should sponsor young ringers who are attending the RWNYC, and whether or not we should pay instructors travelling expenses (the Guild rules state that each District is encouraged to maintain a list of instructors and that they may claim expenses for providing instruction, but it was argued that no-one has claimed these expenses for 50 years!).

The amount held by Districts, presumably in their current accounts earning no interest, rose from £18,382 in 2016 to £27,727 in 2020.

what is needed is better strategic and more centralised invested and a proper strategy of how to invest in ringing nationally. In my opinion. — Simon Ridley

As each Guild and Association is a separate legal entity, it's going to be almost impossible to transfer the funds into a central resource. Also, the central initiative to invest more in recruitment and training (the Ringing Foundation) was shot down. However the Central Council could do far more to encourage best practice by Guilds and Associations.

It used to carry out a triennial survey of BRF's and encouraged societies not to sit on funds. When the last survey was carried out in 1995, they held an average of 4.7 years worth of grants in reserve. It has gradually crept up since and is now well over 10 years worth, as societies generally are raising more money than they spend.

What is more worrying is that much of this money is held in short term deposit accounts at low rates of interest. At least the G&B holds about 25% of its reserves in the M&G Charifund which is a long term investment. However like most other societies much is held in the CCLA or CBF short term deposit accounts. The factsheet for the CCLA deposit fund shows that it has seen a compound return of 4.18% over the last ten years, whereas CPI inflation has been 28.29%.

Over the last ten years interest rates and inflation have been low, but this is no longer the case and the value of these reserves that have been built up is likely to diminish far more rapidly, which would be a tremendous waste of resources.

Middlesex Association
£10 adult membership
1. Districts spend money from the general fund when needed (but very little is spent)
2. 60% is spent within the general fund:
20% covers insurance
20% other general costs like the annual report
In recent years around 20% has been spent on training installations and activities
3. Roughly 40% goes to the BRF
4. Any tower wanting a BRF contribution makes a grant request for an amount so the % of the total restoration cost is not used as a measure and small jobs may get a higher % from the BRF than big jobs
5. We keep enough in the general account for one year of no subscriptions but everything else is channeled to the the BRF and / or training related activities and installations