Anyone else had a go at parkrun?

First topic message reminder :

Was wondering whether anyone else on V2 has had a go at "Parkrun". It's a 5k run every Saturday morning at 0900 in parks or other similar venues. It's free and is organised by volunteers. There's loads of venues all over England and in several other countries as well.  It's not really a race, other than you against yourself, you can see all your timings on line, including how fast you are for your age group, and (if applicable ) how much you've improved week on week. Many venues have several hundred people of all ages taking part.  I'm *ahem* well into middle age, and was completely unathletic. But my daughter got me started and now I take part nearly every week.

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

It would certainly draw a crowd...

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

It would certainly draw a crowd...

Under those circumstances I feel the Council would be justified in charging people

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

It would certainly draw a crowd...

Under those circumstances I feel the Council would be justified in charging people

Agreed, I am glad we came to a conclusion to the issue that we can all agree on... Democracy in action!

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

It would certainly draw a crowd...

Under those circumstances I feel the Council would be justified in charging people

Agreed, I am glad we came to a conclusion to the issue that we can all agree on... Democracy in action!

If only Mr Cameron spent his time reading this instead of getting hammered and abandoning his kids or asking Jimmy Carr the best way to save a few quid. Course if he wanted that kind of advice, he should just ask a few pensioners who'd tell him that the best way to save money is to run through Richard Gere's ar$e dressed like a giant hamster, sell off all your belongings, turn the heating off even in winter and eat cat food!

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

It would certainly draw a crowd...

Under those circumstances I feel the Council would be justified in charging people

Agreed, I am glad we came to a conclusion to the issue that we can all agree on... Democracy in action!

If only Mr Cameron spent his time reading this instead of getting hammered and abandoning his kids or asking Jimmy Carr the best way to save a few quid. Course if he wanted that kind of advice, he should just ask a few pensioners who'd tell him that the best way to save money is to run through Richard Gere's ar$e dressed like a giant hamster, sell off all your belongings, turn the heating off even in winter and eat cat food!

And leave those poor piggies alone...

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

How DARE you?

Anyway, soon the Government will steal a decades old policy idea from the Monster Raving Looney Party when they suggested building a giant treadmill for all the elderly joggers to run on and use them to generate electricity for the Nation

Sorry mate, I always forget that these people all do it altuistically and therefore can not be questioned, I will return to my box...

I would be more than happy seeing the elderly joggers in big wheels however, maybe give them fur coats (faux, naturally) to go for the full hamster effect...

For full hamster effect surely they'd have to run through a giant Perspex tube leading to a giant effigy of Richard Gere's ar$ehole?

It would certainly draw a crowd...

Under those circumstances I feel the Council would be justified in charging people

Agreed, I am glad we came to a conclusion to the issue that we can all agree on... Democracy in action!

If only Mr Cameron spent his time reading this instead of getting hammered and abandoning his kids or asking Jimmy Carr the best way to save a few quid. Course if he wanted that kind of advice, he should just ask a few pensioners who'd tell him that the best way to save money is to run through Richard Gere's ar$e dressed like a giant hamster, sell off all your belongings, turn the heating off even in winter and eat cat food!

And leave those poor piggies alone...

Rowley craves cameron semen flavoured frazzles.

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

Irrelevant if the individual events are run by volunteers.

Topco income goes to support the wider machine, things like advertising and the tech for chip timing etc.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

Irrelevant if the individual events are run by volunteers.

Topco income goes to support the wider machine, things like advertising and the tech for chip timing etc.

Why is it irrelevant if there is profit being made outside of the operating expenses. This then becomes entirely relevant, and the question then must be asked, why are the volunteers not being paid.

I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pondering...

rick_dagless wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

Irrelevant if the individual events are run by volunteers.

Topco income goes to support the wider machine, things like advertising and the tech for chip timing etc.

Why is it irrelevant if there is profit being made outside of the operating expenses.  This then becomes entirely relevant, and the question then must be asked, why are the volunteers not being paid.

I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pondering...

You turn the volunteers into an overhead and the business would have to have millions of spare capital per week in order to not collapse. Minimum wage/NLW plus employer NI plus workplace pensions as your new variable costs plus corporate insurance would go through the roof as suddenly you'd be a business of several thousand employees who could all bring a claim, then you'd have the fixed set-up costs of all the HR involved in getting everyone onto employment contracts.

When will pedestrians charged for using the pavements if this Govt campaign to get us to stop using our cars results in more people walking to work?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:It would be interesting to see the balance sheet for the Parkrun Group however...

I wonder (genuine question) if all the money goes back in...

Irrelevant if the individual events are run by volunteers.

Topco income goes to support the wider machine, things like advertising and the tech for chip timing etc.

Why is it irrelevant if there is profit being made outside of the operating expenses.  This then becomes entirely relevant, and the question then must be asked, why are the volunteers not being paid.

I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pondering...

You turn the volunteers into an overhead and the business would have to have millions of spare capital per week in order to not collapse.  Minimum wage/NLW plus employer NI plus workplace pensions as your new variable costs plus corporate insurance would go through the roof as suddenly you'd be a business of several thousand employees who could all bring a claim, then you'd have the fixed set-up costs of all the HR involved in getting everyone onto employment contracts.

So back to my original though, which you have been kind enough to bring the cyclical discussion back to, it would be interesting to see the balance sheets of the company.

Speaking of circles, we're back in one, why would it be and what's the relevance?

Public parks are for the public. If public volunteers run a free event for members of the public, what's the relevance of the accounts of a parent organisation which provides background & tech support and PR & marketing assistance??

Because they are doing it, potentially, under the banner of a profit making organisation, who, potentially make money from it due to the various partners.

If this then in turn causes excess wear and tear on the environment, meaning more money than usual will be spent on the maintenance and upkeep of the public place, which will then be taken from a council pot funded by the public, then it should stand that some of the, possible, profit from said organisation would go towards some of this upkeep as they are, maybe, directly benefiting from it.

Except it is government policy to INCREASE use of public parks and recreational activities. Park Run does that.

And those runners probably all pay into the local pot through council tax anyway already therefore have a right to use the park in whatever capacity and volume they want.

Park Run Co doesn't derive profits from the events. It doesn't charge a fee. It's all free and run by volunteers. Park Run Co will have costs/overheads for publicity, marketing, PR etc as well as central staffing costs which they will get sponsorship and other commerical income to cover. Presuming there are investors, any profits made in excess of these costs should be either reinvested in the business or paid out as dividends.

So Park Run Co would make money if no park runs went ahead?

As for the INCREASE (thanks for the caps it helps me concentrate) in use of the public park, park run does that, but so would any other event that organises running and does not, potentially, make a profit from it.

Park Run doesn't profit from the runs though. Without the runs the reason for the business collapses so obviously it would need any more income as it wouldn't have a raison d'etre to support.

If I turned up with a few mates and went for a run, I wouldn't be charge. If they all then invited all their mates, we wouldn't be charged. If everyone's mate invited all their mates we wouldn't be charged but we would be left struggling to organise it all. So each week some of us wouldn't run but we'd steward & organise it instead. Everybody would love it and soon the idea would spread to other parks. Nobody would be getting charged.

This is the organic growth of Park Run.

Somebody then says, "We could make this even better with chip timing and a website to show runners times and also attract new runners to our events". So we start setting that up (whilst still running in the park every week and not getting charged) and realise it all costs a bit of money. So another smart somebody says, why don't we brand it a bit (since we're so popular), set up a business and attract investment through advertising by telling folk if they give us the cash we need to run a website, chip timing etc we'll let them advertise their sports products on the website which the now 10s of 1000s of runners will be logging on to.

That's the next stage in Park Run's organic growth.

And no point has their be a sustainable reason to start charging public runners for their public use of a public park which they already pay for the upkeep of through their council tax.

The business might get bigger and need professionals to run it so costs go up so investment is needed. That business might make a profit but it needs to be paid out in dividends to investors or the investors could withdraw if there are no returns provided.

Still doesn't change that on the ground a bunch of local people are using a public service/facility which they've already indirectly contibuted towards the cost of.

Facebook has a similar model, doesn't charge users for using it, most pages are run and organised by volunteers, makes it's money through partners and advertising...

Whether you charge for the activity or not, it does not stop money being made from the brand...

didn't say it did, but there's still a disjoint in your reasoning which doesn't explain why runners should pay or topco should take on the charge as an overhead?

The topco business needs revenues to sustain itself, it needs investment, therefore it needs to make a profit to return to investors. The more layers of the cake you remove the closer you get to a few crumbs left at the bottom of a tin - a few mates running together in a park, which is where it all started.

At no point did I suggest that runners should be charged...

I can only recount what I said in my original wonderings, it would be interesting to see the balance sheet of the company.

And, if, and it is only an if, they are making a profit on the brand of Park Run, due to the investment of partners, sponsors and the suchlike, then it is possible to suggest that some of that profit should go to the remediation of any additional maintenance that is caused by the events...

Maintenance should surely already be there as part of the Local Authorities job. They also run the risk of Parkrun pulling out of this event and reducing particpation numbers surely? Seeing as Public Health now sit under the LA (probably not sat on the Parish council) you would have thought they'd have a word and say overall this is exactly what we want to see happening don't risk upsetting people.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Maintenance should surely already be there as part of the Local Authorities job. They also run the risk of Parkrun pulling out of this event and reducing particpation numbers surely? Seeing as Public Health now sit under the LA (probably not sat on the Parish council) you would have thought they'd have a word and say overall this is exactly what we want to see happening don't risk upsetting people.

Hello No 7...

I agree, but if the additional wear and tear takes it over the anticipated budget based on previous known maintenance costs, would it be fair to offset some of that cost on to an organisation that is profiting from it?

Indeed I would expect that as Park Run Co is solely interested in getting people out and fit, that they would have no problem at all in setting some of their, potential, profit aside to do this with no impact to the common runner whatsoever, would you agree?

But the organisation is only 'profitting' from it by virtue of its existence. It's a chicken and the egg situation.

Park Run Co isn't a profiteering business owned by some corporate raider, it is the central support network for a group of public individuals taking part in a personally orgainsed event staffed by volunteers which is exactly what the council is meant to be supporting.

You're making it sound like Park Run Co is charging runners £10 a pop, making millions every week, screwing the local community & environment then driving off in glod platted ferraris to their private jets for holidays in the bahamas.

I've taken part in proper running events where runners are charged and their is significant corporate sponsorship - these do all pay for the use of local roads/parks. But they're a totally different beast.

Toppy wrote:You're making it sound like Park Run Co is charging runners £10 a pop, making millions every week, screwing the local community & environment then driving off in glod platted ferraris to their private jets for holidays in the bahamas.

Really? I thought the whole basis of my discussion was that:

A) It would be interesting to see their books
B) They made money through their partners of the back of the Park Run brand

Think you are using a little bit of hyperbole here where none is justified, and weakens your argument somewhat.

Anyway, I have no wish to re-hash previous posts, as I fear your debate is leading me towards, and my wonderings, I am sure, will be left un-quenched, but good luck in future runs....

If the parks can't be maintained they won't be open for use.

Got to be a more sensible solution than charging runners though.

rick_dagless wrote:

Toppy wrote:You're making it sound like Park Run Co is charging runners £10 a pop, making millions every week, screwing the local community & environment then driving off in glod platted ferraris to their private jets for holidays in the bahamas.

Really?  I thought the whole basis of my discussion was that:

A) It would be interesting to see their books
B) They made money through their partners of the back of the Park Run brand

Think you are using a little bit of hyperbole here where none is justified, and weakens your argument somewhat.

Anyway, I have no wish to re-hash previous posts, as I fear your debate is leading me towards, and my wonderings, I am sure, will be left un-quenched, but good luck in future runs....

It is 100% clear that what you are saying is that Park Run Co makes a profit (hence why you want to 'see their books') and therefore should be using this profit, or a portion thereof, to pay for council maintenance & upkeep costs.

From multiple angles I've shown why this is nonesense.

At no point have I said that it makes a profit, I was merely wondering if they did, (hence why I want to 'see their books')

From not a single angle have you shown why this is nonsense, barring re-hashing one view, that it is run by volunteers and therefore should be paid for by the public, from which I have presented an alternative view why this should not be the case.

This is a view, not a rebuttal, and, although you appear to have convinced yourself that the view you have is the right one, this does not make it so...

Also, if you're so keen to 'see their books', then just look:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07289574/filing-history?page=1

£6k loss in 2011, £24k profit in 2012; £20k profit in 2014 and £33k profit in 2015. From what I can tell those are EBITDA.

So yes, making massive profits clearly, really should be paying each council for the 400 locations they operate in and almost 1,000,000 runners that are signed to their books.......

TopHat24/7 wrote:Also, if you're so keen to 'see their books', then just look:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07289574/filing-history?page=1

£6k loss in 2011, £24k profit in 2012; £20k profit in 2014 and £33k profit in 2015. From what I can tell those are EBITDA.

So yes, making massive profits clearly, really should be paying each council for the 400 locations they operate in and almost 1,000,000 runners that are signed to their books.......

I never said massive profits, either, why do you insist on exaggeration so much?

So they are making a profit then?

Yes. I never said they weren't.

That was public information you could have gone and got yourself if you thought you had a sustainable argument.

So how do you think they should spend the £33k profit from 2015 w.r.t. 400 Park Run locations?

The council in question, for example, said that it had to spend £60k on road & path repairs (which are impossible to atttribute to Park Run).

Toppy wrote:That was public information you could have gone and got yourself if you thought you had a sustainable argument.

It was merely a query, and before you went and got yourself in a little tizzy about it all, the only question I had was to see the books. This has now been done.

The second point, which I am sure you will agree that if a company was making a profit from it, should it help with the upkeep of damage caused?

What do you now think the £33k should be spent on?

I am sure that the directors pay themselves a living wage and none of the funds are being directed elsewhere.

I also never mentioned any particular council, this was brought up by yourself in an imaginary argument that you derived from my simple request for information regarding the financial wellbeing of Park Run, and the utilisation of the funding thereof.

The aim was not to have a sustainable argument, it was merely a request for information. You clearly have more time to research this than I so I appreciate the concerted effort, and, I shall bear this in mind the next time I need research doing on subjects such as this. Beats having a paralegal any day of the week.

Toppy why do all the people involved in this keep opening small private businesses then dissolving them? Keep getting hired and resigning in tandem? This some sort of elaborate legal way to avoid going over tax limits?

ShahenshahG wrote:Toppy why do all the people involved in this keep opening small private businesses then dissolving them? Keep getting hired and resigning in tandem? This some sort of elaborate legal way to avoid going over tax limits?

Now Shah, Toppy has proven through publically available information, that anyone can get, that the business only operates on tiny profit margins.

This is common knowledge and cannot be challenged.

rick_dagless wrote:

Toppy wrote:That was public information you could have gone and got yourself if you thought you had a sustainable argument.

It was merely a query, and before you went and got yourself in a little tizzy about it all, the only question I had was to see the books.  This has now been done.

The second point, which I am sure you will agree that if a company was making a profit from it, should it help with the upkeep of damage caused?  

What do you now think the £33k should be spent on?

I am sure that the directors pay themselves a living wage and none of the funds are being directed elsewhere.

I also never mentioned any particular council, this was brought up by yourself in an imaginary argument that you derived from my simple request for information regarding the financial wellbeing of Park Run, and the utilisation of the funding thereof.

The aim was not to have a sustainable argument, it was merely a request for information.   You clearly have more time to research this than I so I appreciate the concerted effort, and, I shall bear this in mind the next time I need research doing on subjects such as this.  Beats having a paralegal any day of the week.

Distributed as dividends to investors or reinvested in the business (or a bit of both). Certainly not funding what Councils should be doing themselves out their own existing and substantial budgets.

ShahenshahG wrote:Toppy why do all the people involved in this keep opening small private businesses then dissolving them? Keep getting hired and resigning in tandem? This some sort of elaborate legal way to avoid going over tax limits?

Who are 'all the people'??

Park Run Co was incorporated in 2010 and has filed accounts every year to date.

Toppy wrote:Distributed as dividends to investors or reinvested in the business (or a bit of both). Certainly not funding what Councils should be doing themselves out their own existing and substantial budgets.

How do you budget at work Toppy? Do you put in an estimate and then have to go through an onerous process if it goes over, often taking it from other business pools?

rick_dagless wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Toppy why do all the people involved in this keep opening small private businesses then dissolving them? Keep getting hired and resigning in tandem? This some sort of elaborate legal way to avoid going over tax limits?

Now Shah, Toppy has proven through publically available information, that anyone can get, that the business only operates on tiny profit margins.  

This is common knowledge and cannot be challenged.

Certainly not by you, it would appear.

rick_dagless wrote:

Toppy wrote:Distributed as dividends to investors or reinvested in the business (or a bit of both). Certainly not funding what Councils should be doing themselves out their own existing and substantial budgets.

How do you budget at work Toppy?  Do you put in an estimate and then have to go through an onerous process if it goes over, often taking it from other business pools?

I don't work in corporate accounts or sit on the exec board so I'm no part of 'budgets'. Team gets set a fee target and we spend the year trying to hit it.

Part of that fee target includes a 40% pay away to shareholders as we're a NYSE listed business. We have staff overheads as a team, 'desk costs' which are our share of wider business overheads and that's about it from memory. Anything left over is the bonus pool.

Toppy wrote:I don't work in corporate accounts or sit on the exec board so I'm no part of 'budgets'. Team gets set a fee target and we spend the year trying to hit it.

Part of that fee target includes a 40% pay away to shareholders as we're a NYSE listed business. We have staff overheads as a team, 'desk costs' which are our share of wider business overheads and that's about it from memory. Anything left over is the bonus pool.

So you have no idea whatsoever what goes into the process of obtaining and spending the "substantial budget" that the council has to cover the upkeep of public facilities?

rick_dagless wrote:

Toppy wrote:I don't work in corporate accounts or sit on the exec board so I'm no part of 'budgets'. Team gets set a fee target and we spend the year trying to hit it.

Part of that fee target includes a 40% pay away to shareholders as we're a NYSE listed business. We have staff overheads as a team, 'desk costs' which are our share of wider business overheads and that's about it from memory. Anything left over is the bonus pool.

So you have no idea whatsoever what goes into the process of obtaining and spending the "substantial budget" that the council has to cover the upkeep of public facilities?

It would be naive to think it wasn't substantial (I'm talking the entire council budget, not just parks & recreation division). How could it not be??

Approximately one third of council revenues (council tax basically) goes to funding their pension pot though. Could start there.....

I'd wager that the cost of "repairs" due to ParkRun are significantly outweighed by the costs of returning our local park to a state of tidiness after they've allowed it to be used by the travelling fraternity to set up their Fair for a week. The f*cking state of the place is beyond description (sh!thole doesn't begin to cover it) and I'm fairly confident that the people I see clearing up afterwards aren't thoughtful members for the fairground fraternity. If only they donated proceeds from the cost of a single f*cking ice cream it would keep the paths in decent running condition for a whole year.

But that would make me racist wouldn't it?

Yes, it would. Finsbury Park is currently a state due to it though. It'll be awful after Wireless too, but at least the Council gets a big bung from the organisers of that and you can usually see it spent on the roads/paths the months after.

I cycle through Finny P every day to work, which surely causes as much if not more damage than a 5k run once a week, not sure who people would propose to pay for that additional upkeep....??

If there is one thing that winds me up in life it is a council choosing to spend their money on things that fall outside my relatively narrow self-interests.

Point??

rick_dagless wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Maintenance should surely already be there as part of the Local Authorities job. They also run the risk of Parkrun pulling out of this event and reducing particpation numbers surely? Seeing as Public Health now sit under the LA (probably not sat on the Parish council) you would have thought they'd have a word and say overall this is exactly what we want to see happening don't risk upsetting people.

Hello No 7...

I agree, but if the additional wear and tear takes it over the anticipated budget based on previous known maintenance costs, would it be fair to offset some of that cost on to an organisation that is profiting from it?

Indeed I would expect that as Park Run Co is solely interested in getting people out and fit, that they would have no problem at all in setting some of their, potential, profit aside to do this with no impact to the common runner whatsoever, would you agree?

No, they're basically helping the wider LA in one of their key roles, helping people stay healthy. For that balance I view this as a way for cash strapped councils trying to get money any way they can.

BTW, all, bloody good fun debating this. Not much pettiness or personal insults etc, interesting views & arguments exchanged, genuinely enjoyable and what OT should be all about!!

Shut up you ****!!!!!!

Anyway, did 11.84 miles in 1hr 42mins last night

Got any races coming up, Dave?

Great stuff. REALLY need to get back into it. 9am is just so bloody early on a Saturday though....