gingerjon

Agree that the regulator is woeful. The difference being that all charities above a pretty low threshold (although recently raised) have to put out full audited accounts with accompanying narrative and notes. The detail required goes above and beyond anything required of private companies of similar size - and it's all available for any member of the public to view.

My remark had nothing to do with Parkrun directly though. I think there are very deep issues with the National Trust and some of what it does. If they want to open their car parks and gardens to runners on whatever terms then I have no problem with that.

BBC - Who should pay for parks?

Two pages of unaudited figures without any further details. Unless, as is possible, there was something I missed?

The other 'advantage' of being a charity is that your accounts, who you pay, what you do with your money and how many people you help are all publicly available and publicly challengeable. If all you do is file two sheets of unaudited figures you can put out any old tut.

It would be an interesting comparison to do. Is any approach reaching people who are genuinely unhealthy, have genuinely never exercised properly before etc etc? Given that they are in receipt of public money it's probably partially covered in fragments in reports by those bodies (I see it had Change4Life support for a time for example so there will be an impact report about that in some civil servant's drawer).

Capped council tax. Grants to councils cut. That is quite an important bit. But god forbid the well-sponsored, millions-membered organisation step in to make any kind of payment to help manage and maintain the spaces they use.

You'll have the data to back up that Parkrun has reached more people more effectively than anything any council has ever done, ever.

Don't get me started on the National Trust.

Entirely agree with your second para.

He'll get a gong, don't worry. And I should say that I'm absolutely on board with the ethos of Parkrun but in this instance I have every sympathy for a bunch of unpaid councillors stuck between a rock and hard place trying to make the best of an obviously difficult situation - and getting screached at by no-marks up and down the country as a result.

I suspect they thought that Parkrun might get off its harris and agree to some kind of payment that could come from their central funds or a voluntary contribution (as at other Parkruns) by participants. As already repeatedly said - other large groups that use parks (or indeed most other council-run assets) on a regular basis tend to have to pay for them. That's the norm.

Thanks for that. I think Little Stoke did moot trying to set up a stall for refreshments (in their original November discussion) and the flashpoint seems to have been an overrun car park. It could be that this may not have been the best location for a growing parkrun anyway.

I don't follow the bit about 6k. Who pays it, to who, how often and what for?

The council offered various alternatives - up to and including supporting a grant application to meet the cost of park maintenance that they themselves couldn't directly apply for - and Parkrun rejected them all and offered instead only a vague idea of maybe some volunteers might maybe do some tidying up possibly.

St Helens council appear to charge £65 a go for use of its rugby and football pitches. Which councils don't charge people for using football pitches and the like?

The council attempted to open discussions with Parkrun last November it seems. Parkrun appear to have come back with absolutely nothing. http://www.stokegiffordjournal.co.uk/2015/11/20/cash-strapped-council-levy-charge-popular-parkrun/

And going up steeply in some places year on year too. Something about capping council tax and slashing the grant from central government.

Yes, I've read that link before. You'll forgive me for not swallowing all the marketing by organisations that claim to be for public benefit that avoid putting themselves up to have that tested by going for charitable/community organisation status.

Probably best ignore the parkruns that ask its participants to pay a voluntary fee towards the upkeep of the places they run over ... there's clearly no solution that they could have tried with Stoke Gifford Council.

The sponsors want nothing - and you should ignore parkrun's paid employees and deliberately lo-fi website and its direct ask for public 'donations' (despite being a private company, not a charity). The council proposal in January, according to the Western Daily Press, was £1 per runner per run. Which actually does sound high. Parkrun's only response that I can see has been to say that they might possibly be able to think about providing a few volunteers to do some things maybe.

And yet you objected to St Helens Council running free sports activities for under 25s?

Because you have extensive knowledge in the area of how many people use parks, at what times and in what way? I'd say 300 people running the same route every week would count as significantly more intensive than the park's paths were designed for. I know that running clubs - the things that existed before parkrun - often have to pay (or at least come to an arrangement with councils about parks and pavements) if their groups get too large. Again, I have no problem with that. The sponsors seem to be paying for a fair number of employees and significant national branding. Perhaps for another 10k between them they could pay to keep local councils happy.

The Alzheimers Society will be paying. The others will be paying. They also take money from the public. I haven't heard how much Little Stoke were asking for nor is it clear whether it's the sort of park that can easily accommodate 300 people plus volunteers. I have no problem at all with councils asking organisations who are intensive users of places like parks to contribute something to their upkeep.

Intersport, Fibit and Vitality all sponsor Parkrun. Very selfless of Parkrun to put their logos up but take no money from them.