I don’t mind people saying they would like to know what the basis is.
I know it won’t be the Power of 10 top 100 targets, because they are UKA directed notional targets, which, as a purely motivational target for athletes, are subject to change, whereas EA are using an index, which (like the CPI, RPI) are one year against another.
Now, it appears that ABAC don’t know what the index is, I don’t either, but to not bother to ask (and I take it from the absence of any claim to have asked by Bill) then just make up criticism about some completely different figure to bitch about, yes I do have a problem with that criticism.
Criticise the truth by all means, make up a load of nonsense without bothering to attempt to find out the truth, no.
Now, I could try to contact EA, just like anyone else, to find out what the performance index is, but if I do that and I get an answer it just leads to scrap about me having friends at EA, or being fed info by EA or being paid/employed/directed by EA. Load of carp of course, but repeated as an attack on me by Bill, and John and others. They are not interested in honesty and the content of the Fact Files show that clearly.
Fangio, I said in an earlier post the information was requested but not supplied as the document was heavily redacted. So it was not possible to get the figures. Why don’t you ask?. They may be more receptive to a request from one of their most vocal supporters.
Bill, I Doubt they know who I am as despite your continued lies time and again, I have zero connection to anyone at EA as far as I am aware, or any other part of the NGB. You have been told this time and again but continue to lie about it. You don’t bother with honesty when you want to attack, you are completely untrustworthy.
No you did not request this info, you said you requested a previous set from a funding submission. Which is true Bill. You seem to be in a muddle, one minute it is you requested it on a 2012 document, now you requested it for this document. The two conflicting stories don’t smack of honesty to me Bill.
Either way, still doesn’t change that the A BAD report is bull. What does it say on your website. Something like EA are looking to raise performance by 2% here’s what they did previously. Only the report says nothing about what EA has done. Does that not strike you as misrepresentation Bill. To me it’s just the slack work your organisation continues to produce.
Fangio You said I Doubt they know who I am . I don’t, but I know a man who does.
With regard to the 2017-2021 EA plan this has been requested but so far the request has been refused due to Commercial considerations. When we get it, all will be revealed – or maybe not. Exciting isn’t it?
Bill you posted saying that reducing the PoT standard made it easier to achieve the EA target. Do you now accept that a you don’t know if the PoT target is even relevant to the calculation and that even if it were the calculation of improvement may be based on the target at a fixed date.
If you don’t know what the measure actually is then your fact file is not a fact. It’s a supposition based on zero actual facts file.
Peter King was Chairman of England Athletics for 4 years until October 2016. It is a report produced by Peter King for British Cycling which is now being heavily criticised by Liz Nichols the Chief of UK Sport.
What is it with you guys and not being able to read things properly? Peter Kings report is not being criticized, in fact it is being said that his report was thorough and highlighted several issues that needed to be dealt with within British Cycling. What is being criticized is that the report was not shared by Ian Drake and Brian Cookson with UK Sport.
Portraying this as somehow being critical of the report is either ignorant or deliberately malicious, which one is it Michael?
Also yet again this has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the topic of the thread.
PIAA, from 2012 to 2016 EA targeted a raising of performance standards by 2% per annum. That is by approx. 8% over the funding cycle (not compounded) But we do not know the actual targets . In the same period P10 reduced many performance targets presumably as a result of falling performances. So it is not difficult to conclude that EA failed to achieve what it planned.
The power of 10 top 100 target is not a Performance target for the ngb, be that EA or UKA. They are motivational targets for athletes. Their movement up or down is not based on whether English athletes achieve then in any particular amount. You are right it is not “difficult” to conclude what you did, it’s actually moronic to conclude what you did. Why continue this charade that the Power of 10 top100 targets are indicative of EA achieving their targets, especially when over the funding cycle the numbers reaching the 2013 targets are up across the 4 events your pies poor report highlighted as having 2 reductions in the target. You are a disingenuous liar Bill.