TARS members have been invited to make suggestions about how to use the £60,732.61 legacy bequeathed to the Society by Susie Cattley and Di Stockwell. Please add your suggestions or comments here. The consultation closes on 14th February. And thank you for taking part.
– Peter Willis Signals Editor
Comments added below are public and will be visible to all members. They are also moderated so they will not be visible straight away.
Welcome to the new site – please leave your comments
Peter
While it is no doubt tempting to distribute such beneficence immediately, and all of the suggestions in Signals are worthy, the Committee should also be aware that Swallow and Amazon, once restored, will need regular maintenance and eventual re-refurbishment in perhaps 10 years time.
If, for example, GBP25K was sensibly invested in secure funds, these would probably attract not more than 5% interest, or approx GBP1250 per annum. Over a 10 year time frame this would equate to an accumulation of approx GBP12,500 which might be close to the re-refurbishment cost necessary.
It is all very well to add Swallow and Amazon to TARS assets, but provision ought to be made for their ongoing upkeep, and this legacy would seem like a sensible useage of these funds. Certainly not less than the suggested amount should be allocated for this purpose. more might even be sensible.
I consider that the money bequeathed to TARS would be best used in the restoration/upkeep of Swallow and Amazon a project that is beneficial to the society as a whole.
I agree with Mark Walker regarding upkeep on Swallow and Amazon, these funds could grow and be an asset.
The foregoing comments (Walker/West/Marshall) sum up my own thoughts on this, an opinion I’d arrived at before I opened this forum. We have to be able to maintain these vessels.
My suggestions concern our literary side and to use the bequest to expand its width and its accessibility.
The width of our research/scholarship
Ransome led a long and interesting life, but TARS and its publications mainly concern the Swallows and Amazons writer and writing. Looking at Mixed Moss, it is becoming increasinly biographical as new ways of understanding the series become increasingly difficult or far-fetched.
I would like to see other important aspects of his life explored in a variety of forms – theses, monographs, articles, books etc. These aspects could include being the most influential reporter of the Russian Revolution, a pioneering dinghy sailor in the Baltic, husband of a wife under surveillance by Stalin’s spies, friends of leading writers and poets of the 30s, highly influential in creating the post-war dinghy boom (Mirror dinghies etc.), stuck on the demand of publishers for serials and his attempts to mitigate that millstone… etc.
The bequest would fund scholars in these wider areas, for example those doing Masters or PhD research but also private scholars. It would also encourage wider publication of such research.
Accessibility
If we want Ransome to survive as an author of any importance, we have to have the books about him in Waterstones and all other bookshops. I never understand the “members only”, “subscription” model. It is far too inward looking and will have the result of killing interest in Ransome. It is a nonsensical and destructive policy.
I do not know the legal and financial cost of getting books about Ransome into the bookshops but I know it needs to be done. Urgently if Ransome is not to die with the deaths of those who read him as children.
Mike Bender(author of A New History of Yachting, and Sunlight and Shadows)
We knew Susie and Di well, and Susie let us acquire her beloved collection of classic small boats, which have been in our boathouse for several years.
We think that Susie and Di wanted to give TARS some financial security and that the money should be in some sort of contingency fund rather than spent immediately on small projects.
They did not know about TARS becoming owners of Swallow and Amazon but I think that they would approve of paying for their upkeep and use for publicising TARS. Susie would be amazed at the cost of professional maintenance – she looked after her boats herself.
I knew Susie and Di as they were SW members. They were wooden dinghy sailing enthusiasts and came alive talking about dinghy sailing and were very proud of their contribution to getting so many youngsters into sailing Optimists. I therefore believe that the priority should be a lasting commemoration which the support of Sail Swallow and Amazon will be. Sail Swallow and Amazon needs GP pounds 20,000 to become a self supporting enterprise as contingency funds, which can be invested, need to be in place behind the project in case of long periods of adverse weather, and accidental damage to the boats which needs to be repaired before the insurance funds appear – the available season is only 12 weeks!
Diana Wright
Hello, This is Avi Lank, a member of TARSUS. I suspect that most public libraries in the UK have copies of the 12, but that is not the case overseas. Here in Milwaukee, for example, the public library system, which serves about 2 million people, does not have a complete set of the 12. So I suggest we use some of the money to place copies of the 12 in selected public libraries overseas, asking overseas members to check what is missing in their communities. This would go far to helping another generation become Ransomites.
Mike Bender suggests we shouldn’t overlook the very important part literature and journalism played in AR’s life. This is at odds with all the responses so far in this forum, but it appeals greatly to us at Amazon Publications (AP).
First, I should say that we think Mark Walker’s suggestion of setting aside £25,000 for long-term maintenance of Swallow and Amazon is out of proportion. The article in the Jan 2024 Signals (p.9) says that so far £15,000 has been spent on initial purchase and restoration (£5,000 not from the legacy) and it is anticipated an additional £15-20,000 will be needed to bring the boats into service. That means at least £25,000 has already been earmarked from the legacy for the boats, and Mark thinks as much again should go to the same cause. That is £50,000 from £60,000, leaving barely enough for the contingency fund, a real necessity.
Apart from Mike, everybody who has joined in the discussion so far is saying the boats are “a project that is beneficial to the society as a whole.” That is very far from the truth, even if you consider members in the UK only. Surprising as it may seem to some Tars, AR was a literary person throughout his life, and TARS was set up to celebrate that, as well as the camping and sailing aspects of his life. I got to know Susie and Di through their regular attendance at TARS Literary weekends. They may have been dinghy sailing enthusiasts, but not to the exclusion of AR’s books. There are other Tars whose lives have been greatly enhanced by AR’s work, but have a minimal interest in sailing.
Mike rightly points out that the majority of publications about AR are restricted to TARS members. He made those points in the last chapter of his 2020 “Sunlight and Shadows”. They are indisputable, but to go into publishing needs resources that we at AP don’t have. The paragraph says “I never understand the ‘subscription’ model.” I have explained it to Mike: we are a very small operation, and can only work because of the very generous terms given us by the Literary Executors and Random House, but that does restrict us to TARS members only. Even if we were able to find the time and capital to prepare a book for publication generally, we don’t have the resources to deal with the book trade, and a print run of hundreds. There have been a number of publicly issued books (“Swallows, Amazons and Coots” is the one that most nearly meets the Bender test) but they have to find a publisher who is prepared to take on the costs. The publishers might require the author to give them some kind of guarantee rather than accepting the risk themselves, but there is still a lot of work in making the book available to the general public.
It is not the remit of AP to publicize AR per se. That task belongs elsewhere. AP exists for TARS. As Christina Hardyment’s overview of AP’s existence in “Mixed Moss” shows, we have succeeded over many years in making AR’s otherwise little known literary output available to TARS.
So it is AP’s view that a part of the legacy should go into a reserve for bringing AR’s work more into public notice. A perfect example from the past was in 2000/01 when Scottish region put some TARS money towards an AR exhibit in a special exhibition in the Edinburgh Museum of Childhood. There was huge publicity surrounding this exhibition. That is precisely the sort of publicity we should look for and support. That money came from central reserves. I was Treasurer at the time. and as I said to the regional chairman Jenny Taylor when she asked, that is exactly the kind of project I was building up our reserves for. This legacy gives us a chance to have a ready-made reserve to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity.
To sum up:
We think that TARS should allocate £20,000 towards the initial expenses of the Amazon project. And no more at this time. Those to whom this is an important project should set about fund-raising and apply to TARS as and when appropriate over the coming years.
Those who write books or significant papers on AR etc. should be assisted to publication from central funds when they have completed their work.
Those TARS who mount significant exhibitions to the public (as per Edinburgh) should know that money will be there to fund them.
We think Susie and Di would approve of such distributions. All positive and covering a wide range of TARS’ interests.
Hi, I really agree with Avi’s post. We have had books for schools in the UK for years. It must be good to have a similar scheme for public libraries in the US – and elsewhere if appropriate. This is a way TARS can spread and publicise the AR word outside itself.
My personal suggestion is that we get on with cataloguing the Archives – NOW. Forgive the capitals, but this should not become mired in Agendas, Meetings and Appeals for Volunteers. That could take years. Just gathering the archives has taken decades.
My idea is that we pay for this to be done. Pay either two Tars or one Tar plus relative/friend etc.
I have no idea of the volume of material involved but good cataloguing is neither easy nor quick.
Incentivise two ‘locals’ by paying them. They should be supervised, perhaps by a Board member on a monthly basis, and the hours put in should be logged with progress monitored.
I hope the catalogue will be detailed. There will be loads of good stuff!
Presumably it will be on-line but a nicely bound hard copy could be produced with a dedication along the lines of: “This Catalogue has been made possible by the kind legacy from…”
I hope this finds favour.
Margaret
Hello, Margaret. Thanks for the good words. If it was decided to go the route of putting the 12 in public libraries that lack them, I would be happy to volunteer to coordinate the project in the US. Avi Lank
Another thought about a contingency fund. TARS needs a long-term plan for the Library, which is much more important than boats. At present it is relying on the goodwill of Christine Rae, who is more than likely to move to a smaller house in the foreseeable future. Then where will the Library go?
I knew Susie and Di from the Literary Weekends and I think that the photograph of them in Signals was taken at one of the events. Prices for these weekends inevitably increase every two years while the organisers do their best to keep the price of the weekend as low as possible. £1,000 from the bequest would make a difference keeping costs down in future years and would be used to pay for the accommodation and fares of the guest speakers as well as printing costs. (That would be £500 a year since the literary weekends take place alternate years).
Folk from various countries outside Britain come to these weekends as do folk from all the “Regions” so everyone could benefit.
Occasionally TARS publications require illustrations and due to copyright we do not have the ability to include a relevant one due to the cost. Perhaps a small fund could be put aside for this purpose to be used over the forthcoming years.
Mary Pritchard
Suggestions I think should be deserving of consideration in the decision to make use of the bequest:
1.) Set up an Arthur Ransome Centre for Writing. This would require a location. It would require a lot of thinking about, in terms of purpose. Imagine a Centre where you could go along, either as a group or individual, and attend a writing workshop, the length of which could vary according to the nature of the workshop, etc. It might be for an hour/a day/a weekend/a week (retreat-style). Accommodation might need to be included. AR was, first and foremost, a writer! TARS – is a Literary Society. Of course, research would need to be undertaken. It could be very interesting. Could become lucrative, if that is a required goal. Certainly, it could enhance the public awareness of AR as a writer.
The TARS Library could be based there, too.
2.) The ongoing funding (various) of the Sail Swallow/Amazon is, in my honest opinion, a risky expense. I’ve enjoyed ‘getting onto/into’ water in many types of craft over the years but have not been a boat owner, so do not speak from experience amateur or otherwise but simply from the financial perspective, the monies thus far involved and the so-far identified future expenses are, especially in today’s fraught economic state, unimaginably unjustifiable.
These two craft – mere props from a film from half a century ago – seem in need of a lot of tlc. Will they gauge much public interest, nationally? Even if so, will they continue to do so? And for whom? It’s not going to be a cheap affair to take a sail in one and so is the venture not elitist?
I’d be much more in favour of the monies of the bequest being put into something much more permanent, democratic, substantial. Sailing, for AR and for AR enthusiasts, is only part of the (TARS) story.
3.) I would suggest the possibility of funding accommodation etc for all future IAGMs. The expense to attendees is (for many) considerable and, because of this, impracticable, increasingly. (Or a discount for organising Committee members?!)
4.) A AR statue?! Location, Coniston/Norfolk Broads/Isle of Lewis/…? Antony Gormley-style?
5.) An annual TARS Juniors Regatta/lunch? (Juniors’ idea)
The Board has stated that as regards the Susie and Di bequest “no agreement on its use could be reached”. We are having to guess why there was a lack of agreement, so I am going to assume that the point at issue was how much, if any, of the bequest should be used to finance the restoration of the two boats which starred in the 1974 SA film. I may be wrong but I can’t see what else could have provoked such a strong disagreement.
The major decision regarding ‘Swallow’ and ‘Amazon’ has, like it or not, surely been made by TARS already, i.e. the decision to acquire the boats. Now that TARS owns the boats, there can be no going back. I am not an expert on the matter, but it seems to me that the need to spend money starts from the moment that a wooden boat is acquired, particularly one with a bit of age and wear and tear. Even doing nothing with the boats will cost money. TARS must therefore go ahead and restore and sail them. A large part of the bequest should be devoted to this. On the positive side, ‘Swallow’ and ‘Amazon’, despite never having been owned by AR, have now achieved virtual iconic status due to the stature of Claude Whatham’s film which is now regarded as an all-time cinema classic like Lionel Jeffries’ ‘The Railway Children’. If managed firmly and sensibly (a fairly big ‘if’), the boats could form an attractive element in TARS publicity, and could come to be regarded as Society ‘mascots’ as well as an exciting facility for members. This would also be a welcome antidote to the disappointment felt a while ago about the fate of ‘Coch-y-Bonddhu’, now a museum piece.
As to suggested figures, I go along with Alan Hakim, who proposes that “TARS should allocate £20,000 towards the initial expenses of the Amazon project, and no more”. Alan also suggests that the project managers should “set about fundraising when appropriate”. I agree with that, and yes, I am prepared to make a further contribution when the time comes. On the literary side I also agree with Alan’s suggestion that a contribution should be made to a reserve to promote publicity for AR’s works, and also to a TARS contingency fund.
My first point is that the ‘Swallow’ and ‘Amazon’ boats are replicas from a film not the real things. They need to finance themselves rather than being a black hole for TARS funds. They have already sucked up more funds than they were estimated to.
Can the ‘Regions’ including Scotland get some cut of the donated funds please.
It seems that Scotland’s suggestion of a Ransome folder/ kit for schools was poo poo’d by the Board on the grounds that ‘The English curriculum won’t allow it’. I don’t know about Wales and NI education systems but Scotland’s curriculum for Excellence would allow a Ransome module or two maybe with a focus on lochs (lakes) and Great Northern? (Picts) plus the times Arthur was in Scotland eg to leave for Russia,go to Mull, visit Edinburgh, Dundee for printing etc. The 2nd idea for a module or booklet would concentrate on Arthur’s life and journalism more than the 12 books.
At our AGM a newer TAR asked what Susie and Di would have wanted. Remembering them both setting up their painting kits near Alma Cottage I though ‘A painting/ Art Competition’. We’ve had poetry competitions before so why not Art ones? The next thing I remember them enjoying was Ice Cream, as did Arthur Ransome! Then their mobile home comes to mind, which I suppose indicates that IAGM’s need to continue having parking space for such vehicles.
Donating to any Ransome Museum type space in either the Lakes area or the Broads would be an expensive waste but consideration could be given to any project in Leeds.
Viewing this question from across the Atlantic, I offer the suggestion that the bulk of this bequest be dedicated to an endowment that can generate significant annual income. Careful management of the endowment, with a conservative annual draw-down, would allow the fund to grow and generate more annual income in future years.
I have no strong opinion about funding Swallow and Amazon, except to say that boats are a sinkhole for money, and it would be a shame for the bequest to disappear into a never-ending demand for funds. The limits suggested seem generous.
It does make sense to find ways to recruit a new generation of readers and enthusiasts. Perhaps some of the money the bequest can generate could be earmarked for placing sets of books in strategic libraries and for organizing public events.
A member of our Committee at our recent AGM suggested a good use of funds could be to set up a Fund for Juniors anywhere to have a sailing day. Perhaps a badge could be designed to be sent out to the applicant upon completion of a successful sail?
As an afterthought to the previous suggestion: why not roll out the Fund to cover Cycling, Kayaking, Fishing, Indoor or outdoor climbing, art/writing workshops, a night’s camp?
The current TARS Junior Fund is really aimed only at those aged 13-18 and they have to part-fund their activity, which undoubtedly is still a great expense.
Given the size of the bequest I feel strongly that very careful consideration needs to be given as to how it should be used. The decision need not be rushed and in many ways, there is a lot to be said for not spending all of the bequest at once or on one thing. I feel strongly too that whatever is chosen should be something tangible or visible that honours and remembers their name. It should also be used for something we don’t do now rather than top up existing activities and most certainly it should not be used to cover for any operating deficits each year (that would be to lose the potential it offers). My main suggestions are:
1) Invest (ethically) a portion of the money for the future wellbeing of TARS say £25,000. There may be a need for emergency funds in the future and this would provide a fall back. Similarly, there may be exciting opportunities that may require funds.
2) Establish a Susie and Di sailing grant fund encouraging Juniors and families to join sailing clubs and attend training courses. This would be in the spirit of Ransome, Susie and Di (who I believe were great sailors) and the objectives of TARS. This would allow more substantial and more focused grants to be made than the Junior Adventure fund (which would still be available for other activities) and we would be encouraging youngsters to sail. It may also encourage families to join TARS if this was made known amongst sailing clubs. Say £25,000.
3) The remaining £10,000 could be spent on advertising and promoting TARS in a more focussed and professional way. Again, this would be a good use of funds as its aim would be to grow the society.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
My comments on the suggestions put forward in Signals:
Donations to the regions – I strongly oppose this – many regions have sat on large sums each year without using them and now we have zoom for most meetings running expenses are considerably less.
Publicity – Agree the principle, see 3) above Books for Schools – we already do (and will continue) to do this but with little long-term feedback from the schools. We don’t know how effective this initiative is. So, there is no guarantee that increasing the funding will have any additional benefit to TARS. A Ransome Teaching pack for Secondary schools – No objection (it could be seen as publicity too) but this would only work and be used if it was produced with and endorsed by one of the teaching organisations.
Subsidise Juniors at events – the Midlands region has done this for years without any running down of its finances so no additional funding is needed for this to operate. Offer financial assistance to oversees groups. – No objection in principle as long as we know how they will use additional funds. Bigger grants to regions – I oppose this – what would it be spent on? The bequest should not be used to subsidise members getting reduced entry fees at events etc. Senior Adventure Fund – If seen as a fund for training members for skills to be utilised in TARS then I have no objection, but it should not be used for seniors to go on jollies!
Swallow and Amazon restoration – I’m not opposed to a contribution being spent on the boats but three things should be done before any payment is made. 1) Maximise the opportunities for existing TARS members to contribute to the boats restoration. I feel more can still be done to promote this. One idea would be to encourage members to give a small monthly donation (via direct debit/standing order etc). Several regular small donations can add up to a significant amount and also bring in a regular guaranteed income. 2) Explore and exhaust all grant opportunities. We set up a separate account for the dinghies so as to keep their costs separate from the main TARS accounts, so I don’t accept that because we have a bequest we can’t still apply for grants. Separating out activities/initiatives and being creative with funding is how other organisations operate, so should we. The whole point of a separate account for Sail S&A was to ensure we did not mix the repair and running costs with the main operation of TARS which is largely to produce magazines and support the regions. Susie and Di’s bequest was to TARS not sail S&A so I think we can apply for grants and simply declare what is in the Sail S&A account as the finances for that initiative; and 3) Not before we have clear costs and schedules of work identified by Hunter Yard, There appears to be confusion over costs increasing all the time with members not understanding why or what for. The contract with Hunters Yard, however, is very clear on works being identified, costed and then being agreed by the Board before any repairs are undertaken. Is this happening? If not, this needs to happen and be made clear to all.
Opportunities Fund – Agree, this is essentially is my point 1) above.
Contingency Fund – Agree, this is essentially my point 1) above.
Promoting Tars and Ransome – agree, this is essentially part of my point 3) above.
Peter Wright
Regarding Sail Swallow & Amazon. The separate bank account was not applied for until recently and the first attempt failed, and we are awaiting the results of a second application now, a year on. As to being a separate legal entity so that we can apply for grants and do CrowdFunding, we were just informed that the decision had been made not to separate the legal status of SS&A and so we cannot apply for outside funding as TARS has such large reserves. Who took the decision or why has not been divulged. The SS&A Team have stated that the Board must supply a fundraising person as they do not have the skills and time to carry out major fundraising. We are aware that crowdfunding statistics are that for businesses only 30% achieve their target funds.
However, the money to restore the boats to a hireable condition has been raised, save for a thorough overhaul of Amazon to make sure she has a long life. The rest of the funds which now need to be raised are to protect TARS’ investment so that the boats can get back on the water as quickly as possible after an accident and keep earning. There is a rumour that the boats will need constant donations. The design of the business plan is that they will be financially self sufficient once both boats are full restored and thereafter need light maintenance.
Diana
Could some of the legacy by used to enable modern ways to attract new readers of AR, new members of TARS, foster outdoor activities, promote the art of writing etc to a wider audience? A communications/ publicity /outreach person perhaps, ensuring a regularly refreshed online presence of TARS through social and other media which would spill over into improved awareness, book reading, membership etc.
another suggestion is to explore whether the audio books could be made accessible as podcasts etc.
One suggestion is for a communications / publicity / outreach person to enable modern ways to attract new readers of AR, new members for TARS, encourage outdoor activities and writers from diverse backgrounds. Another is to make the audio books widely available through pod casts.