This topic contains 48 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by billaws 8 months, 1 week ago.
What idiotic posts attempting to deride the mere publication of an official UKA/EA funding document they have presented to Sport England.
The document was not clandestinely obtained as Mark W thinks in his daft ramblings and insinuations. Nor is it a purely EA funding request. It is a joint funding request by UKA/EA……..But in reality, UKA designed it.
All funding from Sport England is paid to UKAtletics who pass on about half to England Athletics and keep the rest for “services” they provide to grass root athletics. (Despite the claims, from them and their supporters on here, they only look after the elite!)
It was obtained, quite legitimately, by an MP and Member of the Select Committee for Sport for the DCMS who then gave his permission for it to be published. It will also be put before the DCMS Select Committee.
Any reasonable thinking person would agree that the funding request document should be in the public domain and subject to scrutiny, as to its veracity, by any interested person/s.
The document’s sole purpose is to gain maximum lottery funding, and what they claim they have produced and achieved for the sport, has to transparent and proven to be true and factual.
If. in any significant way it is eventually deemed by the authorities (in this case, the Lottery Commission and the Public Accounts Committee) to be grossly exaggerated in its claims and clearly intended to mislead, then all parties involved in its production and its apparent unquestioning acceptance by Sport England, may be subject to a fraud investigation by the appropriate body.
……..and the fact that Sport England attempted to withhold it, even from an MP, and despite a FOI request from ABAC, can only indicate Sport England’s need to hide it for fear of challenge to the claims made by UKA/EA on the state of the sport.
There you have it………… ABAC has merely published it. Make your own judgements and when ABAC produces the analysis you can of course again make your own judgement and comments. Other bodies will also be analysing it.
On the other hand, some of you, no doubt, happily accept whatever you’re told by UKA/EA and would prefer that UKA/EA and their funders simply get on in secret doing what they want in spending public and lottery money and no questions asked………but unfortunately for them, that is not the way things are done in a democratic society where transparency and accountability is required.
didn’t deride it’s publication myself, but asked questions about the “analysis” ABAC are intending to publish. Surely their analysis should also be transparent, even if their organisation isn’t.
So more abuse John at least you did not need to resort to the foul mouth abuse that happened in an earlier post. Why not name your tame MP? What has she or he got to hide? If legitimately obtained? We are after all paying for them to sit in parliament. As one politician titled his Autobiography “I had 65,000 bosses”. Why not allow their constituents to know they furnished the document to yourselves? Daft insinuations? Well I may not be in a majority of one there…
Let us be honest here, the aim is not to draw out the positive aspects of the submission rather the whole focus of this is to mine every piece of negativity, real or unsubstantiated. Will hard evidence be produced to prove those aspects you are incredulous over?
Oddly you never seem to address issues as to why ABAC is so keen on sniping rather than doing. No answers forthcoming on the other questions I asked.
My other challenge is to the naysayers is are you still making an active contribution exceeding 20-30 hours a week to the sport or are you relying on what you once did either as an income source or as a pure volunteer? You are only as good as your last contribution…
Well a bit shorter than my last contribution so I guess less rambling…
Mark W, Our NGB’s employ huge staff numbers at a huge cost and they operate in secrecy. Any NGB document that is put in the public domain is therefore of enormous interest as it helps the foot soldiers to see what claims arebeing made, what objectives are to be pursued, and after a period of time to see whether targets have been met.
UKA/EA employ about 18 media staff whos sole purpose is to publicise all things positive whether real or imaginary.
It would seem sensible therefor for those of us who have to put up with all this tosh to concentrate on areas where misrepresentation occurs. Where there is light there is hope.
Name the source! They are paid by me and every other taxpayer, why are they hiding behind ABAC? You demand transperency from EA etc but will not comply with a reasonable request that this apply equally to them? MPs’ are compelled to reveal outside interests paid normally but frequently unpaid in the members register but given the short span to the election, this cannot be done.
Why are you protecting them from legitimate scrutiny? Are they being protected for reasons of partisan politics? If so be honest on that score.Is it down to political affiliations?
Name the source!
Mark W., just a tad hypocritical aren’t you? You and your fellow “defenders of the truth” never reveal your true identities. So who are you to dremand names? At least have the guts to give your full name. along with the fangio and PIAA, if you want to be so demanding, otherwise shut up.
If you’re stupid enough to imagine the England funding document was procured ‘illegally’, by an MP, then Sport England would be going ballistic….Curiouser still, as I have already mentioned, you seem to think, quite ridiculously that somehow the document may in fact be false, a fabrication made up by ABAC!……oh well, takes all kinds.
I’ve no intention whatsoever of revealing the MP’s name because it is of no relevance. The document has been received, perfectly legally unredacted, unlike the one received directly by a FOI request from ABAC, which was 95% redacted!)
Surprising, that considering this is a request from our NGB’s for Lottery funding, you see nothing wrong with Sport England attempting to cover it up from public gaze and therefore, prevent any possible challenge as to it’s truth and accuracy!… Only one possible conclusion can be made as to why they want to cover it up: Because they know it is not true and accurate and therefore they can be held liable, as they will be, of culpable fraud in helping UKA/EA obtain public money, on false and misleading information.
Again, I would point out for those with nothing better to do than try and ‘shoot the messenger’, that the document should be and now is in the public domaine for all to decide for themselves as to the veracity of what is claimed….Laughably, all you backroom boys can do, is critise the supposed findings of the, as to yet, unpublished analysis of what a non UKA statistician makes of it?………And even then it will be open to whatever, concerns, criticisms or agreements that readers (not just on eightlane) decide upon, whether they concur or not?
As a well known pedant may I point out that Parliament has dissolved for the General Election and there are only former MP’s. Will our mystery man be re-elected? Will our mystery man have a position of power? Watch this space.
just forget it… I cannot be bothered with this discredited attempt to make big people of yourselves…
I suspect this unnamed MP is either an non-existent person, or else, If they are, they are a sad excuse for a public representative.
you are right on parliament being dissolved, no-one is an MP. So ABAC are in the business of having gone to the gutter either being in possession of a document they should not have or else playing dirty partisan politics by attempting to protect a former MP who has no honour…
Either way, a really bad show from a group who spout the need for transparency but cannot practice what the preach, rather discredits what you claim to be doing here… ummm???
John Bicourt has woken up from his long sleep. I was worried that he had been sectioned.
John, I am worried for you..? You demanded to know my identity two years ago. I furnished that information to you and if you recall you praised my work.Now comrade you cannot have it both ways. I may suffer from Victor Meldrewism but in the end my conscience is clear. Where does the stain lie. To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare’s Henry V:
“…You will hear herald no more”. At least on this matter…😁
As Ringo Starr is want to say… “Peace and love,peace and love”
A bit rude MarkE…So unlike you.
Admittedly, I have not read every single word in this lengthy glossy report. But welcomed the opportunity to pick out the bits that interest me. Thanks Bill/John for getting it published. …And it really is a eye opener. It cannot be denied its not a glossy professionally looking documents…but to me they have gone for quantity and repetition to befuddle and mesmerise Sports England . To narrow my read I used the search facility using the words ‘Athletics Network ‘ and found Athletics Network was mentioned 150 times…so more than enough for me to read.
EA rightly used ‘Athletics Networks’ as key thrust ,a key justification , for the significant sums applied for. Shame EA decided , without consultation with the clubs they say they represent , abandoned their support of Networks a couple of years ago ?,
I have not got the ability to do a very detailed analysis of what EA said Networks had already achieved (or not) or whethther they were true to their word and pass on the grants to Networks . But to me some of the statements and figures in their documents still to me look embellishing the truth. . eg. Below are just a couple of the many ‘iffy’ paras they stated in relation to Athletics Networks..
-To support clubs and schools we will invest over £15,000,000 into established
–We have created a community sport system of 52 Athletics networks, covering
the country, and engaging directly with over half a million participants.
In my experience the Networks were a good idea with some hard working individuals but many clubs didn’t get behind them.
The problem was that some Networks were more active and engaging than others leading to varying results.
I agree MarkE. But this thread is really about what EA stated to SE. Was it true?
I agree MarkE. But this thread is really about what EA stated to SE. Was it true?