so many forums

[tailwind]

Yet another athletics forum has been created.

http://athleticsdaily.proboards104.com.

How many do we need?

[daisy]

No doubt they will specialise in critcising UKA and other political ranting. i think it is better to keep it all in one place so good luck to them.

[admin]

Yet another athletics forum has been created.

Yet another username for Broadsword / Word Warrior

[mikewats]

word warrior is a total legend,im in luv wit this guy already and i only jus started goin on here properly.

[james montgomery]

Yet another athletics forum has been created.

Yet another username for Broadsword / Word Warrior

Whoever the poster is, good luck and good for them to keep in there. The more that can be laid before UKA and the quangos the better. If what is said is wrong then challenge it. That's what Broadsword, Word Warrior or any others of us do who don't see UKA through rose tinted glasses. Personally, I'm entirely positive about UKA's set up. Positively they should be disbanded.

[Thornhill]

It is not UKA's role to look after the grassroots development of the sport, when first set up the intention was that they would deal with the Performance and international teams. In addition they would look after areas like coaching that effects all the Home Nations.

The reason that they eneded up doing more in areas that really they should never have is that the AAA of England were deemed "unfit for purpose" by Sport England and giving public money over too a body like that was not the right thing to do.

The sport was in trouble well before UKA was set up, and in truth they have tried but made mistakes. The new England athletics wil take a lot of structure away from UKA so give it time to be set up and running.

Athletics is now a massivley global sport people from 200+ nations take part. Great Britain is successful in Cycling and Rowing because african, and carabean nations don't take part. When they do those sports held up as shining examples will come under a lot of pressure.

Too many people complain about money and have a "wheres mine?" attitude. If you started coaching athletics for money then you were never going to make much. Charge the athletes for your services don't ask governing bodies for handouts.

The reason coaches don't get lottery money is that UK sport don't recognise the volunteer personal coach and money is given direct to athletes to pay for additional coaching support. Your complaint is with UK sport, sport England and the Dept of Culture Media and Sport.

[james montgomery]

It is not UKA's role to look after the grassroots development of the sport, when first set up the intention was that they would deal with the Performance and international teams. In addition they would look after areas like coaching that effects all the Home Nations.

The reason that they eneded up doing more in areas that really they should never have is that the AAA of England were deemed "unfit for purpose" by Sport England and giving public money over too a body like that was not the right thing to do.

The sport was in trouble well before UKA was set up, and in truth they have tried but made mistakes. The new England athletics wil take a lot of structure away from UKA so give it time to be set up and running.

Athletics is now a massivley global sport people from 200+ nations take part. Great Britain is successful in Cycling and Rowing because african, and carabean nations don't take part. When they do those sports held up as shining examples will come under a lot of pressure.

Too many people complain about money and have a "wheres mine?" attitude. If you started coaching athletics for money then you were never going to make much. Charge the athletes for your services don't ask governing bodies for handouts.

The reason coaches don't get lottery money is that UK sport don't recognise the volunteer personal coach and money is given direct to athletes to pay for additional coaching support. Your complaint is with UK sport, sport England and the Dept of Culture Media and Sport.

If any administration was "unfit for purpose" it would be UKA and Sport England. The latter for it's failure to properly monitor, assess and require accountability on how public money from taxation and the lottery was being spent on athletics and the former for it's abysmal failure over 9 years to achieve any of the targets agreed with UK Sport for which it received c£45 million.

It's rich indeed for any of the above to lable the AAA's of England the same. A case of the pot trying to call the kettle, black!

The AAA's and it's Territories, the North, Midlands and South and it's affiliated associations for cross country, road and fell running, governed and provided through its clubs the whole panopoly of competition and infrastructure for the sport in England (and c95% of GB teams) on a comparatively shoe string budget, with unpaid officials, relying almost wholly on the good will of the volunteer sector and it's coaches that "UK Sport does not recognise."

The AAA's and it's Territories may have been far from perfect (what almost completely unpaid volunteer organisation is?) but had they been invited to present a business plan to receive substantial funding to enable them to professionalise and employ staff on the same scale as UKA, they would have made a far better job of delivering a vibrant and successful sport. They could hardly have done worse!

"New England Athletics" has been set up in the same mould and for the same reason as UKA. To take total control of the sport in the blind and misguided belief that the volunteers (the workers) will fall in behind the paid "professionals" and provide for them the success the country (i.e., the government) needs. And whatever money is now being promised, will be spread very thinly indeed to the grass roots once the massively increased administration costs and selected premiership clubs have been taken care of. They're still trying to grow trees from the top down!

[kent trunkflap]

I often wonder, how would B.A.F have fared if they had been given as much money.

[<3.Track_&&_Fi]

GB:AP RAWKSssss! :lol:

[james montgomery]

I often wonder, how would B.A.F have fared if they had been given as much money.

I doubt they could have done worse?

[daisy]

The AAA's and it's Territories may have been far from perfect (what almost completely unpaid volunteer organisation is?) but had they been invited to present a business plan to receive substantial funding to enable them to professionalise and employ staff on the same scale as UKA, they would have made a far better job of delivering a vibrant and successful sport. They could hardly have done worse!

So bare with me here James, i've been out of the country a long time. Why were the AAA dismantled rather than being restructured to run as a professional body? I may have this wrong so don't bite.

One of the complaints i see at present is there is no accountability to the clubs. What if the UKA positions were all professional but those employed are elected? Possibly every 4-6 years with one position changed every year. That means fresh faces and fresh ideas with plenty of overlap for passing on the knowledge. I can see many pro's and cons for such a system. Maybe you have discussed something similar in a different thread here?

[james montgomery]

The AAA's and it's Territories may have been far from perfect (what almost completely unpaid volunteer organisation is?) but had they been invited to present a business plan to receive substantial funding to enable them to professionalise and employ staff on the same scale as UKA, they would have made a far better job of delivering a vibrant and successful sport. They could hardly have done worse!

So bare with me here James, i've been out of the country a long time. Why were the AAA dismantled rather than being restructured to run as a professional body? I may have this wrong so don't bite.

One of the complaints i see at present is there is no accountability to the clubs. What if the UKA positions were all professional but those employed are elected? Possibly every 4-6 years with one position changed every year. That means fresh faces and fresh ideas with plenty of overlap for passing on the knowledge. I can see many pro's and cons for such a system. Maybe you have discussed something similar in a different thread here?

"Daisy" Perfectly reasonable questions.

I believe the reason the AAA's was dismantled and disenfranchised was to enable the sport in England to be structured and administered according to Sport England's "one stop plan" without undue let or hindrance from the sport itself, ie., subject to the decisions of elected committee and elected management officials who in turn are (in principle) subject to the clubs wishes.

In other words they wanted to have control over the way "their" money was to be spent and they want to ensure that those appointed to the senior "professional" positions were of their own chosing on the basis of "He who pays the piper call the tune." !

Unfortunately, for Sport England, Athletics is not run by employees as in a normal company and they cannot just assume that by creating a new company, England Athletics Ltd, that the volunteers will simply fall into line with the new administrative structure and strategy, especially when there is no proper financial model or business plan. Neither are they helped by the way UKA (the parent body) is perceived by the rank and file as out of touch and generally incompetent.

If UKA had been brilliantly successful in delivering all that it claimed it would, then clearly, what they are now supporting and driving would be more readily acceptable.

It is not so much about the opportunity to possibly elect those engaged to be professionally appointed but about the structure itself and the evident lack of detail and substance that objectively proves the new structure can work when it will have to rely almost entirely upon a voluntary work force.

You mention fresh faces and new ideas. I am afraid that UKA and Sport England, as proved by their Foster Review Road Shows and the comments they made following the Poll farce ("the results of the poll will have no influence whatsoever"!) that they have only gone through a process of being seen to consult when in fact they have been completely and unwaveringly set on one course only.

What the sport wants has only been given scant consideration. The Foster review never even consulted the clubs and never reviewed or carried out an audit on UKA's performance. Everything was geared from day one to set up an already decided new structure.

The stakeholders say there will be accountability, that elected representatives will sit on various boards and committees with the power to "hire and fire" and make (or is it have a say?) on the major decisions? But I doubt if that will really be the case or what real effect it may have on the running and financial distribution for the sport, given that the funds are finite, earmarked already and due to cease after 5 years. £11-13m. is not going to go far.

In my opinion, what should have happened when Moorcroft was given the "shut up and keep quite about the lost World Champs for London" money, was for the AAA's to be given the opportunity, in consultation with it's Territories and their clubs, to come up with their own financially sound plans including more effective self restructuring.

If Foster cost £423.500 (as it did) that money would have easily allowed the sport to determine it's own plan and own destiny based on the money available. As it is Foster and his architects, Sport England, have only created greater division, animosity, suspicion and resentment. None of which, bodes well for the future.

[james montgomery]

The AAA's and it's Territories may have been far from perfect (what almost completely unpaid volunteer organisation is?) but had they been invited to present a business plan to receive substantial funding to enable them to professionalise and employ staff on the same scale as UKA, they would have made a far better job of delivering a vibrant and successful sport. They could hardly have done worse!

So bare with me here James, i've been out of the country a long time. Why were the AAA dismantled rather than being restructured to run as a professional body? I may have this wrong so don't bite.

One of the complaints i see at present is there is no accountability to the clubs. What if the UKA positions were all professional but those employed are elected? Possibly every 4-6 years with one position changed every year. That means fresh faces and fresh ideas with plenty of overlap for passing on the knowledge. I can see many pro's and cons for such a system. Maybe you have discussed something similar in a different thread here?

"Daisy" Perfectly reasonable questions.

I believe the reason the AAA's was dismantled and disenfranchised was to enable the sport in England to be structured and administered according to Sport England's "one stop plan" without undue let or hindrance from the sport itself, ie., subject to the decisions of elected committee and elected management officials who in turn are (in principle) subject to the clubs wishes.

In other words they wanted to have control over the way "their" money was to be spent and they want to ensure that those appointed to the senior "professional" positions were of their own chosing on the basis of "He who pays the piper call the tune." !

Unfortunately, for Sport England, Athletics is not run by employees as in a normal company and they cannot just assume that by creating a new company, England Athletics Ltd, that the volunteers will simply fall into line with the new administrative structure and strategy, especially when there is no proper financial model or business plan. Neither are they helped by the way UKA (the parent body) is perceived by the rank and file as out of touch and generally incompetent.

If UKA had been brilliantly successful in delivering all that it claimed it would, then clearly, what they are now supporting and driving would be more readily acceptable.

It is not so much about the opportunity to possibly elect those engaged to be professionally appointed but about the structure itself and the evident lack of detail and substance that objectively proves the new structure can work when it will have to rely almost entirely upon a voluntary work force.

You mention fresh faces and new ideas. I am afraid that UKA and Sport England, as proved by their Foster Review Road Shows and the comments they made following the Poll farce ("the results of the poll will have no influence whatsoever"!) that they have only gone through a process of being seen to consult when in fact they have been completely and unwaveringly set on one course only.

What the sport wants has only been given scant consideration. The Foster review never even consulted the clubs and never reviewed or carried out an audit on UKA's performance. Everything was geared from day one to set up an already decided new structure.

The stakeholders say there will be accountability, that elected representatives will sit on various boards and committees with the power to "hire and fire" and make (or is it have a say?) on the major decisions? But I doubt if that will really be the case or what real effect it may have on the running and financial distribution for the sport, given that the funds are finite, earmarked already and due to cease after 5 years. £11-13m. is not going to go far.

In my opinion, what should have happened when Moorcroft was given the "shut up and keep quite about the lost World Champs for London" money, was for the AAA's to be given the opportunity, in consultation with it's Territories and their clubs, to come up with their own financially sound plans including more effective self restructuring.

If Foster cost £423.500 (as it did) that money would have easily allowed the sport to determine it's own plan and own destiny based on the money available. As it is Foster and his architects, Sport England, have only created greater division, animosity, suspicion and resentment. None of which, bodes well for the future.

I'd be interested to know if what I say is considered generally agreed with or is there any fault in my synopsis?

[bekeselassie]

How could you have made no mention of Craig Masback?

[Pelle3]

Bek - why would they?

[bekeselassie]

Bek - why would they?

Pelle, don't you know better than that by now?

[daisy]

How could you have made no mention of Craig Masback?

I think i missed something here too?

Still processing the data James, will post soon.

[bekeselassie]

Pelle, Signature Swiper, come on! It's Bek here! It was a joke. Get it? Masback? USATF?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!