Home Forum General Stuff Main Forum The unredacted England Athletics 2013-2017 funding application

This topic contains 48 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Profile photo of BillLaws billaws 3 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #157858 Reply

    PIAA

    What reason do you have to think it wasn’t. Something more than “I just don’t think it sounds right” would be helpful.

    #157861 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    southlondonllad

    I gave a couple of examples. I could list a few more. You are probably much better at maths than me… ? .What’s £15 million…divided by 52 networks ?

    #157863 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    southlondonllad

    …………and where did I say “I just don’t think it sounds right” ?

    #157864 Reply

    PIAA

    SLL I was just meaning that an evidenced critique was what I was after. I.e. Not a superficial ooo that doesn’t sound right.

    Over how many years was that money to be spent? How much in supporting staff? Just dividing the high level figure tells us nothing.

    #157865 Reply

    PIAA

    And just to clarify, your first objection is that they asked for (please note this doc does not say what they actually got) a lot of money togelpgrass roots clubs.

    #157866 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    southlondonllad

    It was You who made the comment as if I had said it, by putting ” speech marks” around it…I accept your apology.

    #157867 Reply

    PIAA

    I didn’t say you had said that, I merely put it in quotations as it was mid sentence and as such I felt it needed parenthesis.

    #157870 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    Southlondonllad

    Ok you can have the last word.

    #157871 Reply

    PIAA

    Bugger off, your post said I was apologising, I wasn’t letting that stand as I point blank had not accused you of anything.

    Now back to the actual topic, any comment on the fact that the document doesn’t tell you what they actually got given for networks or how long they were planning on spending it over? Without this information I cannot see how you can draw any conclusions at all, other than they were trying to obtain funding for grass roots clubs. What exactly do you find odd about that?

    #157879 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    Southlondonllad

    MarkE….I’ve changed my mind. Your last post was pertinent for this tread. You were right to point out that not all of the 52 Networks or supported well by all clubs…. But it’s not the impression given in the glossy document. Embellished truth?

    #157882 Reply
    Profile photo of Mark E
    Mark E

    My point was that NGB’s in all sports are guided by the funders in regard to what they should include in tender documents.

    I am certain that very few are able to pitch for what they really want. Sport has effectively been hijacked by Politicians.

    A large number of clubs failed to engage with the network concept. I know some Networks have done well but more have not.

    #157883 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    southlondonllad

    Interesting view. My experience in London and South is the opposite, .I would have said it the other way round. IMO, most Networks did a good job and value for money. But there lies one of the key problems with our NGB…They were/are useless at monitoring performance, and too secretive when publishing facts and figures. (eg coach numnbers )

    #157886 Reply

    PIAA

    So we have now established that your concern was that the NGB seemed to be asking fir a very large sum of money for something you actually felt was beneficial.

    What exactly is the issue you have with that?

    #157888 Reply
    Profile photo of southlondonllad
    southlondonllad

    MarkE, perhaps the numerous clubs that formed the 7 London Networks were more engaged, proactive and out-performed the East Midlands……But happy to take what you say as based on your local knowledge…..However, the funding submission document made bold dubious statements based on what they said had already been achieved by the 52 Networks. There are numerous examples of this throughout the documents. a couple more examples:

    .
    We have created a community sport system of 52 Athletics networks, covering
    the country, and engaging directly with over half a million participants
    (Oh really ?)
    .
    More people are active in athletics and running in areas with Athletics Networks
    than in areas without.
    (Says who? , no justification)
    .
    Average membership has increased in size across all clubs between 2008 and
    2010. Network clubs are significantly larger than non-network clubs, and grew
    at a faster rate over the period.”
    ( No supporting figures )

    #157889 Reply

    PIAA

    Do you have any figures to show the contrary? Or are you just now doing exactly what I suggested would not he useful i.e. Just saying “I just don’t think that sounds right”. Call it a premonition but it was pretty clear it wouldn’t take long for you to resort to this.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)
Reply To: The unredacted England Athletics 2013-2017 funding application
Your information: