This topic contains 12 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Zac 2 weeks ago.
NoEAAA have recently revealed that they receive less than 90p per athlete from England Athletic grants. As their clubs act as tax collectors to gain £14 per athlete for the NGB it is reasonable to ask where the bulk of this income is spent? Any ideas?
Thirty seconds on google bill..
Thanks Bill and Cookie118 for your links……Both are interesting reads. Seems to me that the North are trying to be proactive and looking to the future. Their criticism of England Athletics is justified in my view. So much for a democratic NGB….Absolutely zero chance of this being a item to vote on at the next AGM.
England Athletics list their seven (deadly sins) areas on which registration income is spent can be broken down as follows:
Coaching & Athlete Development
Direct Membership benefits – including insurance
Affiliation & Registration management
Communication & Business Development
I would have thought at least 3 of the above could be challenged in terms of costs v benefit to athletes and clubs.
Cookie, When you read EA documents you have to search for the missing elements.
Sure they can produce a pie chart indicating the areas of expenditure. But what they omit to list is how much of the cake goes to their own staff.
I have before me their last filed accounts. A few details for you delectation.
Total Income £8,715,196 of which £5,151,402 was Grant Aid.
There were 81 staff implementing the various schemes costing £3,456,499 . (70 staff in 2015.)
The Affiliation fees go not to grass roots projects but in part to paying staff to run their initiatives. The combined payments to the 3 Territorial Associations total about £160,000. The rest goes towards the NGB costs. As Grant Aid is reduced in the years ahead you can bet your bottom dollar fees income will pay for more and more of the staff costs. About time EA cut its cloth etc.,
So what you’re saying bill is that it’s reasonable to ask but you already know?
So what’s the point of asking? To pretend that they have something to hide?
So the complaint is that an organisation spends its money on staff…… in the service sector that’s how things generally work. You employ people to provide services.
Cookie, When I started this thread I was reacting to the NoEAAA open letter. Following your naïve “30 seconds on Google” contribution I looked at it closely and hence my last effort>
ABAC looked at this in 2012 when the idea of increased registration fees was being debated. You may recall clubs voted against increased fees at the various road shows held around the country but were ignored and a subsequent poll by EA was used to justify rises.
The ABAC predictions of 2012 fell about £500,000 short of the latest figures because £10 was used as the figures for several groups including road runners and also no allowance was made for the full fees being charged to very young athletes.
So it is clear this is a tax to pay for EA staff. As grant aid is reduced the NGB will be ever more dependent on athlete fees. So we have a situation where we have no representation and have to pay more and more fees to sustain the unelected bloated bureaucracy called England Athletics.
George 111 found himself in this situation and lost America. Is it too much to hope we can lose England Athletics.?
Bill, the NoEAAA Facebook post raises some very valid concerns and issues.
However I feel that ABAC approach the issues in the incorrect way to make any meaningful change because the arguments are too easily dismissed out of hand.
For example-correct me if I’m wrong but tbe fact file linked says that the competing member fees will rise to £20, but they have never reached that high?
You ask in the first post where the money is being spent, but it is clearly obvious where it is being spent-EA will tell you where it is being spent, either on their website or in their public accounts.
SLL is asking the right questions-Challenge the cost/benefit analysis in the specific areas. If you think too much is spent on staff then:
What should they spend? Where do the savings come from? Where are the inefficiencies?
There’s none of this from ABAC, just outrage at any cost with no analysis of the benefits.
It’s a constant frustration of mine-ABAC could be a good force to hold the NGB’s to account but it’s points are too easy to dismiss.
Coockie, I deduced from your earlier post that when you read articles your approach is superficial.
Your latest comment confirms that. The ABAC Fact File I referenced was published in 2012. It was used to inform debate which led to the reduced fee proposals which at the time were £20 per athlete. So no contradictions just informing everyone 5 years ago that there were problems ahead. That prediction has been bourn out
England Athletics have recently published their Finance predictions for the next 4 years with expectations of a substantial Income of £28,694,00. But how will they actually spend this income and what in reality will benefit clubs and its membership ? Looks like they are planning to again increase fees to athletes. Its well known that SE funding will gradually be reducing. But what does stands out is the drastic drop in ‘Other Activities’ income. This surely is where the CEO and Chairman should be earning their salaries by securing better and longer term sponsorships. ?
I hope the EA data/figures below lines up beneath the relevant year, when I press the post button.
OTHER ACTIVITIES (?).£2131…….£2026………£1936……..£1748………£7841.
I am still not sure what England Athletics contribute to the sport that did not exist before they were formed.
I can only think of the system of taxation, and I think they have done a great job in implementing that. I honestly did not think the sport would have been so naive as to accept it as it has.
Please to say my list of years and figures did line up when viewing on my laptop….however, figures looks ‘off set’ and difficult to read on my small Android phone screen.
I do find it odd that EA have already posted their expected significant increase in expected rising revenue from athletes Affiliation fees in the next 4 years…yet are happy to promote their forthcoming ‘Consolation’ nights around the country and On-Line surveys. I ask myself “Whats the point going to these now if, year on year, they just nod heads, smile,thank everyone for turning up,….and then simply ignore constructive views and objections ?
Both actions of consulting with “the stakeholders”, and showing themselves to be sustainable without government support in future are consistent with.
Such actions are required if they wish to keep receiving public money, and retain the freedom to do whatever they wish.
Sport England and the DCMS both play the same game when dealing with their own paymasters. It is a cultural thing within the professional sporting system which is funded by public money.
Meanwhile they all collectively complain about the wages of footballers which is a distraction to confuse the issue about value for money.