This topic contains 51 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by southlondonllad 3 months, 2 weeks ago.
No memory loss here Bill. Money moving between various parts of a system is not money taken out of the sport, why you distort that is obvious. Yes they offer cheap race licensing, I think we all know that Bill, its there in my post. What they do not offer is a cheaper ngb. The simple reason being are not an ngb, they piggy back the services offered by uka ea etc.
ARC did not put a cap on UKA or EA, in the same way as my local shop doesn’t change the pricing policy of the supermarkets.
All they have done is offer cheap licenses, so races go out of the system and the non-affiliated levy leaves the sport. Its not it goes elsewhere in the sport, it just goes.You seem really proud that an income stream that used to go into the sport as a whole is hived off, yet surely from your position you should be campaigning for ARC to give money to the counties, if that is where you think it belongs. ARC could do that, but they don’t because in making a contribution the sport in that way they would need to raise the race license fee, and they are all about how cheap they can get the license, taking money out of the sport rather than money going into it, despite your implication earlier.
Fangio, As ARC licences about 20% of extra stadia events it is a controlling influence on what UKA does or can do with regard to upping charges. You haven’t addressed my point that unchecked UKA/EA can do what they like and the rise in Affiliation fees shows that.
Please don’t say that the NGB’s need the revenue from fees because their grant aid is reducing.
a) We do not need bloated NGB’s with their high staff costs
b) . Where are the sponsors who once supported the NGB’s?
Bill, as usual you ignore the real world.
Other than for soccer there are very few sponsors out there. Sponsors need tangible returns for their investment and in general terms this means TV exposure.
Sport in this country is funded by a Government quango and that is at the mercy of Government policy, hence the reason that participation is the main driver.
Silly me Mark. Sport in this Country is mainly funded by the Lottery with money disbursed by Sport England. They receive income monthly and it has to be spent quickly. Income from the lottery peaked at £25million a month but is now in decline so even more monetary squeeze on athletics. A commercial concern would either cut its overheads or find new sources of income.
As you imply increasing numbers (and the Affiliation fees) is a means of balancing the books. But that ignores the main UKA remit of moving the sport forward as a quality product.
Bill, good to see you continue to use BS statistics. With 531 licenses issued last year by ARC, and 430 Park Run locations, that is approx 21500 (allowing for a couple of no shows for each venue) Park Runs. So if all that existed were ARC and Park Run ARC would have under 2.5% of extra stadia events, and that is ignoring every road and cross country race, every relay every fell or trail race, every wheelchair race, every race walk, every run for life et al, every schools race or cubs race every race at the village fete, every street athletics event. 20% of extra stadia, utter BS Bill.
Mark did not imply that increasing numbers balanced the books, he said funding would be directed at that.
As for your previous points, NGBs no longer get a blank cheque,they have to show that the membership are funding the sport too, some sort of registration fees are needed by funding bodies, essentially why should the taxpayer pay if the sports participants chip in nothing. You imply that the registration would be higher, maybe it would maybe it wouldnt, I doubt that the less than 1% of extra stadia events run by ARC are seen as a glbig factor when the ngb is in partnership with someone whos races are free and are 40 times as big. Try thinking logically Bill.
Btw have you got any details on the sponsorship, I assume it is lower, de to financial circumstances, but that is an assumption. Surely you have not shot your mouth off without knowing any of the facts again?
Btw any reply o why ARC dont fund the counties, since you think that is what UKA shoudl do with road race monies. Any defence as to why this is not just takign money out fo teh sport whilst providing nothign to the sport? No of course not. It’s a members club for people who want to hurt UKA (they haven’t) of do athetics on the cheap, at a low level.
MarkE . I have to agree with Bill. And I meet others (usually volunteer officials) who also think the current sub-NGB (England Athletics) is now too bloated. You may personally not agree, and happy with their growing numbers, and to be fair, its a counter point of view. Perhaps promulgating evidence of a growing Empire and Ivory Tower could influence the uninitiated Funders. As will ,apparently , a dubious phone survey on how many million are now ‘doing athletics’ each week.
I asked MarkW to let me know what CCSO’s are currently doing for his club….Apparently nothing. Never had call to ever use them , which I do find hard to believe, but happy to take his comment at face value. May I ask if you think your club receives value for money from the current support of your CCSO ? If so, what is it ?
I ask this open question: What would your club rather have : CCSO’s popping in to have a chat now and again. And to do some ‘local authority stuff’ (whatever that means) or make a case for Club Network funding to be reintroduced so that local Clubs can collectively use the money that supports local athletic needs. ? Hypothetical question I know…but I was a fan of Networks……even though a couple were ineffective, i think the majority were productive and worthwhile..
Parkruns get everything for free I believe including insurance cover although the runners do not have to be Affiliated. How much do Parkruns pay for their permits.? Another attempt to distort facts Fangio
No distortion on my part Bill you claimed they licensed 20% of non stadia events, whether Park Run pays for anything or even if they are licensed does not effect whether they are an extra stadia event, they are. It was you who said extra stadia, if you meant something else you should have said so, but that would be you poorly defining things not me distorting. It is factually correct to say that ARC provide licenses to less than 2.5% of extra stadia events.las arras
It wouldn’t surprise me if EA are left with a serious deficit next year. They would therefore be left with a likelihood of increasing revenues (I can hear the groans already) and/or cutting costs.
My guess is that they will do both. A lot of other sports have higher affiliation fees (their members consider it good value) and face the same constraints.
Not sure on your question regarding CCSO’s. We do tap into advice from ours occasionally and utilise flying coaches. The main issues for me are the availability of technical flying coaches to help some of our less experienced coaches develop their expertise and the failure to support the Networks.
A Club and Coach Support Officer is exactly the right role for making the most of our affiliation money. Some networks still exist, Essex County AA have provided support to keep the Essex Network going. Maybe South London Lads club should join that? Personally I value both, but the networks are more cost effective…
MarkE.Agree with you that ‘flying coaches’ can be very useful as you describe and hopefully these will not get cut..
But EA surely cannot keeping pursing a strategy where expenditure is so much higher that guaranteed income. Its never a good business model .So to me it odd ( I posted it before)that EA are currently advertising for another person to be added to the payroll, approx. £150,000 for a 3 year contract ?
Although I like the ethos of the 9 Regional Councils and see value in their existence ,they are primarily just a ‘talking shop’ who failed to convinced EA of the outstanding organisation skills and benefits of the good Club Networks. Could be one reason why in 2016 EA reported a decline of nearly £300,000 in income from courses.
Hank, Good to read Essex County AA are supporting the local club Network. However the County is not England Athletics. My network SLAN survives by paying a good Administrator and the 6 clubs themselves make an annual contribution to facilitate this. I am told by the SLAN EA rep that more than 50% of Networks have folded throughout the UK. SLAN is one of the more successful ones.
Fangio, regarding permitting of races may I refine my criteria to those races where fees are paid. Parkrun is subsidised in many ways by the NGB’s because they can use the numbers of runners to inflate participation figures. As I see it Parkrun enjoy
1. Runners do not have to be affiliated so pay no fees or permits.
2. Results are put on P10 despite other non registered athletes being barred.
3. Parkrun gets free insurance from UKA.
So you might say it is the taxed club athletes who are subsidising Parkrun at the behest of the NGB’s.
So, what you are saying is ARC have 1/4 of the licenses that UKA do for extra stadia. Can I clarify, are you only including road races, or all extra stadia, and where do you get this very round figure from? Surely it wouldn’t be made up.
Hang on, weren’t you saying the success of Parkrun was nothing to do with the NGB?
Correct. ParkRun was a success Nationally way before the NGB got panicky and realised they missed the boat on engaging runners of all abilities to a free weekly run……..Initially the NGB tried to ignore Parkrun and attempted an inferior alternative called RUN! (bizarrely this EA supported service is still going around London, including Free 5K runs in the Olympic Park.(plagiarism/Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery). Late in the day the NGB had no other choice to but accept ParkRun because of the huge participation numbers. The NGB then bent over backwards, offered a couple of carrots , so they could say they had formed a ‘partnership with ParkRun” …………..otherwise they would be accursed of jumping on the bandwagon…which of course they have.