This topic contains 311 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Mark E 3 days, 1 hour ago.
Zac and John. ABAC reviewed the salaries of UKA in an article published in Dec 2013. In that article ABAC claimed that Neils de Vos had increase his salary from the previous year by 55%. After that article was published UKA explained that NdV had not increased his salary by that amount. The reason it appeared a large increase was that he had been awarded a Bonus after the Olympics. This was not necessarily granted on merit. It appears that when he joined UKA in 2007 he managed to get a clause in his contract which allowed for a bonus to be paid after the Olympics. I have no idea what the criteria were but clearly Team Mo ,et al, met them. From memory in 2013 his bonus was £65,000 making his basic salary about £190,000 in 2013. (He also has contributions paid to a money purchase scheme making his total emolument was £276,594 for 2013).
His salary in 2014 (No bonus) was £213,271 plus £25,973 contributed by UKA to a money purchase scheme. Disregarding the 2013 bonus his total emoluments rose from circa £216,000 to £239,244.
That is a rise of £23,244 or 10.8%. Way above the National average.
I guess , like Sir Malcolm Rifkind he feels “entitled” to that level of remuneration. !!
Why does the EA Champs allow Irish and Scotch athletes to compete then?
They don’t pay any affiliation fee so they shouldn’t be allowed to be English Champions
There are no athletes from outside England in the National CC. There used to be many years ago as I remember Nat Muir winning the Junior race in the 70s.
The various EA track champs are open to athletes from elsewhere. I don’t know whether checks are made on England based athletes who enter those.
Bill: Thanks for the update in the UKA CEO renumeration.
The AAAs Championships were stolen by the Quango’s who wanted to get their hands on the commercial wealth of the sport.
The BBC paid £6 million to cover the AAA’s Champs (Senior Olympic Trials) in 2004.
This income belonged to the clubs. When the AAA’s elected treasurer, Keith Atkins started raising legitimate concerns, he was suspended by Chairman George Bunner. George Bunner was also the Chairman of Eveque the Sports Equipment Distributers who have generated much private income from UK Athletics and England Athletics.
The picture of George continues to hang upside down in memory of the legacy left to the AAAs under his Chairmanship.
The AAA’s Champs were the de facto National Championships for the UK, which is why Scots, Irish and Welsh were welcome.
Anyone know what the current television contract is worth?
With regard to “harriers” events (i.e. XC, road relays), if a scottish/welsh/NI athlete is a member of an EA qualified club then they can compete subject to having paid the registration fee. There’s nothing in the UKA rules (which EA competitions are run under) to prevent this. The requirement to be registered is effectively a competition condition.
Non GB&NI athletes may also compete but there are further competition restrictions now which limit the number of non GB&NI athletes per scoring team. To add further confusion to the mix, non GB&NI athletes who’ve been resident for certain length of time don’t count towards this quota.
So Zac, just so I’m clear, you entered an athlete in the EA champs that he wasn’t registered to compete in and you think in some way that someone else is at fault. You didn’t tell him you’d entered him either.
So, it’s someone like NdV’s fault that your athlete didn’t run.
Are there any sports on your planet where the athletes would be allowed to compete in those circumstances?
Here’s a suggestion. Why not give him the choice? He or his parents may not have your dogmatic anti-establishment tendencies and would, like most people, expect to pay for registration. You may well have robbed him of that opportunity that you mention and if you’d like to look for blame I suggest you buy a mirror.
To be clear, I entered the boy into the National Cross Country Championships in the hope that by the time the race came around, I would have had time to motivate him to care about and look forward to this big event. This event is organised by the ECCA (The English Cross Country Association, and are not known by anyone in the sport as the EA Champs).
I did not inform the boy he was entered.
On 6th February 2015 I received an email identifying this youngster as not being registered with England Athletics, therefore would not be able to compete at the 128th annual running of the National. It is worth noting these Championships are 120 years older than England Athletics, and are being reduced to a tax collection vehicle for a quango that need not exist.
As it turned out, the entry was accepted. The email saying it had been rejected was a bluff, which I presume was generated by England Athletics in an effort to encourage the payment of the tax.
I take comfort in the fact that the ECCA still retain independence of mind, and accepted all athletes irrespective of whether they were registered with England Athletics or not. It is good to know that we still have some decent athletics people working for the benefit of the sport and its participants.
As regards your comment I that I give athletes a choice about paying a tax to fund England Athletics jobs, I refuse. I do not work for England Athletics, I do not support England Athletics, and I do not acknowledge that England Athletics are part of Athletics. If they disappeared, along with UK Athletics, Sport England and UK Sport, people would still Run, Jump and Throw.
I find the idea that an organisation exists to give a license to people which enables them to Run Jump and Throw to be obscene.
The implication of your posting suggests you support such bureaucracy, which confirms to me, as your user name indicates you are Not John Bicourt.
I said EA Champs -meaning the champs organised by them (no XC events are).
Regularly Irish athletes compete but they don’t have a registration process.
All an athlete has to do though is put any old number in the box as no one at EA checks or has the nouse to do so
Organising and hosting national level competitions isn’t really beaurocrarcy though is it? Just like in any other sport.
Being against the payment is fine of course and you can run jump and throw to your hearts content. But wanting to compete within an organisations competition structure without contribution is a bit churlish to say the least.
The entry fee for the competition was paid and accepted. The contract between the athlete and the competition organiser was completed.
The fact that England Athletics choose to jump into the middle of this agreement and impose their own fee is churlish. Calling the National Cross Country Championships an event which falls “within a third party’s [England Athletics] competition structure” is churlish.
England Athletics was created to allow Tony Blair’s Labour Government to turn athletics into a vehicle to deliver their social agenda. None of the social benefits they hoped for have flowed from their Game Plan policy document.
(See paragraphs 8 to 14)
If England Athletics are sincere about all the good work they are trying to do, then I suggest they drop any pretensions about governance, and simply implement the good work, allowing the clubs the freedom to follow if they wish.
If you are able to provide a reasoned argument for complying with England Athletics governance, please do so. All I am hearing is an increasingly shrill demand for obedience without anyone articulating England Athletics, or UK Athletics responsibilities, and the sanctions for failing to meet those responsibilities.
I’m sure you’ll find the contract was void because you lied. You knew he was supposed to comply with the rules of the organiser, that they should be registered athletes. So they are perfectly entitled to void the contract.
I assume that this was EAs competition you were entering dishonestly. That’s the churlish bit.
I have no problems with EA personally. As the OP mentioned, the fee is quite low relative to other sports and the competition structure, among other things I can’t be bothered to educate you on, makes it worthwhile.
You have a problem with the people at the top. Fair enough. But don’t take it out on your athletes or the people that do the good work (of which I’m not one, before you ask).
You are using emotional terms such as “lied” & “dishonestly”.
I am happy to discuss any benefits you feel England Athletics offer the wider sport, and why I might give them the space to deliver this good work, and observe the fruit as they emerge.
If I am confronted with an entryform for a championships which existed before England Athletics, but restricts entry to the tiny fraction of the population who have paid the tax, I will select the appropriate of the three options:
Where I know an athlete is not registered.
1) I will enter the words, “Tax not applicable”.
Where the athlete is probably registered but I refuse to acknowedge it.
2) I will enter the words, “See your records”.
Where the registration is online and a number is required.
3) I will enter a random number that will always include the numbers “666”
If you wish to describe that as telling lies, or being dishonest, I apologise for not caring.
Yes, both of those.
Same language, same pointlessness, same disingenuousness from someone who loves to argue from the need to feel important from a position of having done nothing of note!