"plastic brit" gains more coverage

[readtherules]

I think I get what RTR thinks is NGB funding.

RTR, are you referrring to the element of individual support that is delivered by the NGB for the athlete. i.e are you complaining that UKA will provide medical cover and physio, overseas training, overseas competition opportunities etc to athletes whoa re on funding, via monies givben for that purpose by UK Sport.

The money given for the WCPP to the NGB is to provide the support services to these athletes. Therefor if there are more of them they get given more money to spend effectively on behalf of these athletes. I now see that you are argueing that athletes who come from overseas to compete for the UK should not be given medical support etc.

Please don't confuse WCPP monies, which are given to support specific athletes, with the NGBs generic budget, which does not relate to these athletes.

You are beyond belief ! I cant see in any regard that you have any reason to say

"you are argueing that athletes who come from overseas to compete for the UK should not be given medical support etc."

As it happens think the exact opposite.


Before I deal with what you think I have not understood I need to grasp what you mean by the term "generic budget".Will you please make clear what you mean by this term.

[BigGut]

RTR,

You are arguing that UKA should not be given the WCPP monies that are specifically for assisting the athletes on the WCPP. Just to clarify this money, ie the WCPP money is not the admin budget for UKA and is not for paying for the chief exec etc, it is specifically for providing support services for elite athletes.

So if, lets be outrageous, 50 world class athletes with UK parentage decided to compete for the UK you say that UKA should not receive the WCPP monies because UKA didnt develope these athletes. However that money isn't for UKA to spend on whatever they fancy it is the money that pays for the medical support etc for those elite athletes. So your choice is simple, either you want the athletes to receive the medical support etc, or you don't. If you don't want UKA to be given the means to provide this support, which is what you are calling for, then you don't.

Just to clarify, the WCPP funding is not money given to UKA to operate UKA.

[readtherules]

Big g

Yet again you invent things to suit yourself.I have never ever ever argued what you state in your last post,ie.

"You are arguing that UKA should not be given the WCPP monies that are specifically for assisting the athletes on the WCPP"

Your ability to not understand or to contort is beyond any reason.

I note that you have been unable to indicate what you mean by "generic".

I now want to deal with your last comment.

"Just to clarify, the WCPP funding is not money given to UKA to operate UKA."

Will you go on the UKA site and look for the last accounts,under governance.Then look to p6.This details the income to UKA under WCP as £8,865,031.Then it shows as expenditure £8,865,690 for WCP and GB team.
I tried my best to cut and paste ,but failed,sorry.
As UKA is a company whos significant purpose is to develop podium performance then clearly WCP funding goes to satisfy these aims.I grasp that such is ring fenced but clearly all the salaries etc etc of UKA coaching staff and camps etc come from this, then WCP funding does go to UKA to operate.

[BigGut]

RTR,

Read that page of the accounts again.

It refers to World Class performance as income of £8,865,031. This is the income not only from the individual athletes support but also funding to send teams to championships, which is not directly related to the numbers on funding. This figure includes the paralympic funding.

ALL OF THIS FIGURE IS THEN SPENT ON THE ELITE ATHLETES AND THEIR SUPPORT AND SENDING TEAMS TO CHAMPIONSHIPS. To be accurate there is a £659 overspend, ie they spent more on elite athletes than they received from UK Sport.

If you look under expenditure you will see an item worth £10,359,096. This is entitled Development, governance and operations. This is a larger sum than the World Class Program. It is not from the World Class Performance Program, is not dependant on the number of medallists and is spent on running UKA activities.

By the way you said to go to the governance page and page 6 of the latest accounts. It's actually under Governance, then financial statements, then the latest financial statement. Much as Fangio gave a mistaken rule number you have now given an incorrect location of the UKA financial statements. Should I now go around saying that the information you gave didn't exist and call you a liar... Of course not, but feel free to be a hypocrite.

[readtherules]

Big g.

You are unbelievable.
You said.

"
By the way you said to go to "the governance page and page 6 of the latest accounts"."

I could/should have said goverance then latest accounts and then p6.But I assume a degree of brain power could have been appied.To suggest that the absence of total clarity in my note may lead to a possibilitry of calling me a liar says more about you than me.

You say;

"If you look under expenditure you will see an item worth £10,359,096. This is entitled Development, governance and operations. This is a larger sum than the World Class Program. It is not from the World Class Performance Program, is not dependant on the number of medallists and is spent on running UKA activities."

What on earth does the above mean ?

Do you agree that running "world class performance" is part of the activities of UKA ?

What do you mean by "generic funding" (3rd time of asking)?

I think there is a chicken and egg situation about funding.I have made this point but you ignore.
The global pot is created by reference to medals and medal potential.From this it is then divided up within the WCP plan.It is NOT the other way about.

[BigGut]

RTR,

It is very, very simple.

The WCPP is made up of 3 general areas:

The direct funding given to individuals, which goes via the NGB acounts, this is dependant on the number of athletes on Podium and Development funding

The funding supplied to provide, which goes to the NGB to provide the support services such as the medical services etc that you agree the athletes should receive, this is dependant on the number of athletes on Podium and Development funding.

The funding provided to send teams to championships, this is not directly dependant on the numbers who are on funding

The entire amount provided by the WCPP is pent on these activities.

The other sum of money that runs UKA is the operations of UKA, pays for it's staff and headquaters and all of theother services that are not directly in support of the elite athletes on funding. THIS MONEY IS NOT DEPENDANT UPON MEDALLISTS!!! It has nothing whatever to do with the WCP. THis money will not go uyp because of the new internationals.

What can't you understand?

[readtherules]

Big g

What do you mean by generic funding.(4th time of asking)
Are the funcions and activities associated with WCP part of the activities of UKA(asked yet again).

You have failed to understand the chicken/egg problem.

You state that WCPP is made up of 3 parts.This is the way the money is spent NOT the basis of the extent of the pot.The pot comes first and is mainly determined by medals .In spending this money this is an activity of UKA.

I fully understand that the other main source(non UKS) of UKA income is NOT directly dependent on medals.(however ,in a not too round about way,sponsership and TV money has a lot to do with our medal profile)

However more medals = more money for UKA via UKS (plus TV and sponsership)

[BigGut]

But the money from UKS is to be spent directly on supporting the athletes on funding.

Soooooo if you say that UKA shouldn't get this money if the athletes aren't developed here then you are arguing that the athletes such as Porter and Co should not receive the support, because youa re arguing that UKA shouldnt be given the money to provide this support.

By generic funding I mean funds given to UKA to spend on UKA activities other than supporting the funded athletes. Funding given to do the governance and operational roles of the organisation. These funds are not provided by UKS to UKA and are not based on a medals to cash calculation.

I don't like getting into debates which revolve around governance and NGBs and the like, but when somebody is spouting so much utter garbage I can't let it go unchallenged.

[readtherules]

But the money from UKS is to be spent directly on supporting the athletes on funding.

Soooooo if you say that UKA shouldn't get this money if the athletes aren't developed here then you are arguing that the athletes such as Porter and Co should not receive the support, because youa re arguing that UKA shouldnt be given the money to provide this support.

By generic funding I mean funds given to UKA to spend on UKA activities other than supporting the funded athletes. Funding given to do the governance and operational roles of the organisation. These funds are not provided by UKS to UKA and are not based on a medals to cash calculation.

I don't like getting into debates which revolve around governance and NGBs and the like, but when somebody is spouting so much utter garbage I can't let it go unchallenged.

You say that I say;

"Soooooo if you say that UKA shouldn't get this money if the athletes aren't developed here then you are arguing that the athletes such as Porter and Co should not receive the support, because youa re arguing that UKA shouldnt be given the money to provide this support."

I utterly repeat yet yet again that I never said this at all in any regard.Why do you mislead and contort ?

Yes,what you say is generic funding is non UKS money.But is delivering a WCP part of the activities of UKA.One assumes it is.
The more medals and medal potential the more money comes into UKA from UKS.A fair bit of it may go directly out to athletes but 60/70 % stays within UKA to run their performance side inc wages etc.

Where lies the garbage ?

Summary.

More medals = more dosh.

[BigGut]

You say you think that the new internationals should receive funding and support. You have said this a couple of times.

You also say that you don't think that UKA should receive any extra budget because of these internationals.


So where the hell do you propose the money comes from for UKA to provide the support to these new internationals?


You cannot have it both ways, either you want them to be supported and therefor that the UKA WCP budget increases in line with mbers on funding, or you don't want them to receive support and as such there is no budget increase.

I have also done some further digging. It seems that that the figure in the UKA accounts from UKS does not include the personal payments and is merely the support monies and an amount for funding international teams. From the rough figures available there are 131 athletes supported by UKS at a total figure of about, and it is rough, £6.2m per annum for support services to be provided. That is £55k per podium and £35k for development.

So RTR are you saying that you don't think that this support should be available to the new internationals? Yes or No?

[readtherules]

big g.


Here you go again inventing things.you state my position or comments in your last posting as;


"You say you think that the new internationals should receive funding and support. You have said this a couple of times.

You also say that you don't think that UKA should receive any extra budget because of these internationals."

Would you kindly point out were on earth you get the inventions of your fantasy world from.

The postion is that UKA have a 4 yr budget that each winter gets allocated to various athletes.This would not just be because the are merely internationals.So if we have a new group ,either like a new Porter or an improving Hitchen then they get the money and some others dont.CVC has also pointed out he has a small pot for special new cases.I am not sure if this would be athlete support but would inc other things.for instance if Hitchen suddendly throws 75m then she would get something to help her preparation .All seems fine to me.
If there is a very successful games then the pot will be bigger and more athletes can get benefit.Or the opposite if poor Games.

The pot exists due to medals,how this is distributed is down to UKA ,against pre arranged criteria set by UKS,each year.

[fangio]

RTR PLease stop typing it is apaprent that you know absolutely nothing about the WCPP ssytem or the KPI's.

[BigGut]

Just to be clear I am using the term new internationals to describe Porter, Aldama etc, basically because I find "plastic Brits" utterly offensive.

You say that you think these athletes should receive funding.

But you also say that UKA should not receive the additional funding to pay for the support services for them.

You cannot have it both ways.

[readtherules]

RTR PLease stop typing it is apaprent that you know absolutely nothing about the WCPP ssytem or the KPI's.

Fangio.

It is noted that you have failed to provide one single bit of info about the email and document you claim to have.This would lead to the conclusion that you ,yet again,make things up.You are now cornered and resort to the pathetic tactic of stopping a theme within a topic as you are exposed.

[readtherules]

Just to be clear I am using the term new internationals to describe Porter, Aldama etc, basically because I find "plastic Brits" utterly offensive.

You say that you think these athletes should receive funding.

But you also say that UKA should not receive the additional funding to pay for the support services for them.

You cannot have it both ways.

Once again you,Tweddle Dee,resort to the same tactics as your chum Fangio,(aka tweedfle dum)of continuing to make things up and mis represent what posters have said.

I repeat I have not said that UKA should not get extra resources.They would get these,if appropriate ,at the next review with UKS.there also exists an intermediate review of performance and it would be assumed that in the most exceptional circumstances this could go up or indeed down.But this is an assumption.The UKS docs are written by Sir Humphry to give UKS wriggle room.

The central point of this mini theme was that UKA get money for medals,this is via the pot that is created every 4 yrs.

You also fail to realise that UKA can and do pay for performance out of what you refer to as generic funding.

I await the next combined effort of the Tweddles to frustrate any debate by inventing things so as to disort and frustrate debate.

[BigGut]

So let's get this straight, you think that UKA should receive an increased budget to support athletes if the number of funded athletes increases.

[readtherules]

Big g

Still not got it have you

[BigGut]

No I have got it.

You do think these athletes should be given support.

But you don't think UKA should be given the money to provide the support.

ie you are talking nonsense.

[readtherules]

Big g

Yet again I have to repeat that once again you invent what I say,fail to read what I say or grasp the basis of funding.

The actual money would come from the pot agreed for 4 yrs.UKA have some freedom and exercise that freedom every Autumn and re-allocate to existing or new athletes and with some being dropped so that the new ones can be afforded.

If the sport has a very good Olympics then the pot can be increased so more athletes can get funding or fewer removed.

[readtherules]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/oth ... 91656.html

I agree with CVC.

[gruffalo]

Just to pick up on certain athletes "papering over the cracks" and Sarah Claxton "she made Beijing final they cried" look into it closer. Sarah Claxton scraped into the final last as the result of a "Foinhaven" effect. A number of athletes in the Semis, all better than Claxton, underperformed including Susanna Kallur who crashed out.

The medals were won in 12.5/12.6 Claxton crossed the line in last in 12.94

This is the problem when people point at individual performances. It is a single performance. It doesn't tell the whole truth of either the athlete, the event or the sport. Women 100mh times have been in the 12.5/6 for years.

"we can't have a world class athlete/finalist in every event" - poor excuse for years of mediocre performances.

The question should be why can/has the UK produced Jackson/jarrett but can't produce a female equivalent (or even a male since them)

Why can UK produce world class male high jumpers but mediocre female ones.

The world has moved on. The UK hasn't.

I would hope that athletes like Porter/Aldama et al spur on other talented UK athletes especially the younger ones to better things showing them where they could be and what they can achieve - and embarass those coaches who have plodded along in denial.

[Geoff]

A thought provoking question (as opposed to a provocative one!).

Why shouldn't UKA seek out eligible British athletes from around the world? They are eligible and no one wants different levels of Britishness so why do UKA make a point of saying they do not actively recruit? If they qualify for Britain then actively recruit them as do our Welsh and Scottish football teams for example.

Serious responses will help get to the heart of the issue with eligibility likely not to feature very high, if at all.

A slightly amusing thought. UKA could set out a programme to find these athletes with possibly Ancestry.com as sponsor

[boysen]

It used to be said that success breeds sucess. However who has replaced Backley/Hill, Steve Smith, Tessa/Fatima/,Paula, Linford,SEb and co, Steve Jones,Rowland, Jackson, Carl M. Kath c, Sally g, Ashia, Judy O, Meg R, and so on? The excuse that we cannot have world class in every event is a cop out. £100mn should buy wide success?

[trickstat]

I think it is unrealistic to expect us to have world-class athletes in every event all at the same time. This is something that no country in the world currently has. For instance, the US is lacking them in JT, 3000 S/C and Women's TJ while Russia has very few world-class male track athletes.

[Geoff]

We may not succeed in getting a world class performer in each event but we should always try to do the very best we can to achieve that goal. This is why the process/system/structure is so important and why the focus is now more on development and not just on the elite. The two have to come together hence thproposed merger of UK Sport and Sport England (and UKA/EA???).

[bevone]

I wrote a tirade about what boysen said then decided not to publish but they are right- where are the replacements? One says we shouldnt expect to be good at all event all the time which i dont necessarily agree with because why cant we produce good female high jumpers when the best are heptathletes and the dont concentrate on that event. Then others say that aldama etc can act as role models and raise the standard. Well we had ashia hanson who i reckon could come back adn still be number 1! nobody has picked up from where she left off as is the case with backley et al! YOu cannot argue it both ways.

I do think that we have a few events where we have depth now which is great - we should concentrate for example in transferring all the good male shot putters we had over the past few years into good internationals rather than throwing 14/15/16m! What about the coaches - some who have made it into prominant roles in the various roles wo didn perform at a high level and havent coached to it either in all events.

John Hillier and Mike Winch in the past and present have produced some of our best throwers so why are they not inolved with the national set up and watching the sky youtube article on lawrence okoye the world u20 record holder, britsh record holder, european u23 and british number 1 at his first year - his coach complains that he is badly funded which does not bode well. Politics do i hear someone mutter!?

[sidelined]

Why can UK produce world class male high jumpers but mediocre female ones.

Gruffalo, in the dusty archives of this site is a thread entirely devoted to this subject:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1745&p=27349&hilit=women's+jumps#p27349

This is a bit off topic, but bevone, Lawrence Okoye came fifth at the trials and then said he wasn't read to go to Daegu. He hasn't been throwing the discus for long, and it seems to me that the 'development category is the right place for him.

[trickstat]

I can think of a couple of possible reasons why we tend to struggle in the Women's TJ:

1) It does seem to be the case that those who take up the event in the UK are those who are not at or very near the very top of the rankings in their previous speciality. This tends to be the Long Jump, it appears to me that in many other European countries, a greater number of the athletes who are ranked in the top 3 or so in their age group at LJ take up the TJ as well. I base this on the observation that these other countries seem to often have athletes who are at least international class in both at Senior and Junior level.

2) A lot of those who may have great potential at TJ take up netball in particular. Amongst the countries where netball is a popular sport, Jamaica has produced Trecia Smith, but notable women exponents from Australia and South Africa have yet to emerge. Australia have produced a number of world-class male Triple Juniors while South Africa have done well at World Junior level.

I still think we ought to doing a bit better than we have been though as we ought to have at least produced a few more athletes of the standard of Michelle Griffith and Connie Henry.

[bevone]

sidelined - i dont know if it was intended - but that was written like a uka employee/sychofant!

Read again - he won U23 europeans, world record, uk record in his first year and all you can come up with is the AAA's. How does that make him development and so what if he hasnt been throwing that long - he has thrown far enough and won the big meet when it counted so proves that he has championship pedigree? How many other UK athletes are in this position errrr none! HE is one of the few athletes ranked n the top 10 in the world. I dont coach him and he was competing against my athletes so I have no vested interest so as his rival/oppponent who knows a bit about this says it - perhaps the likes of yourself should listen. Nobody else supports this lack of funding and let's face it - we all know why he isnt funded properly, because he is not based at loughborough with one of their coaches but instead working with John Hillier who a lot better than anything loughborough can offer him. He has also got a brain and I should imagine loyalty as the feature on him suggests. It is down to petty politics and nothing more - having been and continue to be a victim of this I should know!

I cant wait for him to throw 70m and then break the world record to see what they say then = and i say this as he being one of my athletes rivals and competitor with no vested interest at all. THe lad is a clear talent and the talk of the event on a world level. -lets try adn help him and not put barriers up against him because UKA cannot take any credit!

[TheRealSub10]

I don't know the details of this behind the scenes but as far as I recall there aren't any discus coaches at Loughborough so why would UKA want him to move there anyway? Secondly, aren't there loads of athletes on podium funding not coached by UKA coaches all of whom are not penalised so why would he be? Once you go onto podium funding isn't it a one way street - if you don't perform and go off you can't go back to development? If this is the case as I recall it being why would you want to make the jump too early? Isn't it better to stay on development and then move up when the time is right? Finally, isn't development funding actually quite good? Don't you get free physio and money to live on etc? If so what extra does he need to perform - sounds like he has a good coach, some funding, some treatment, pretty much everything you want to do well?