athletic coach wrote:My children behave better than you lot, you can't have a nice discussion without dragging it down in to an argument.
BAF went into administration - fact.
David Moorcroft took into administration - fact
Was he right, in hindsight probably not as the government had a lot of money to put into athletics and other issues were resolved in favour of BAF. However we do not have hindsight.
The real issue here is had David Moorcroft acted properly in his role as CEO of UKA.
Gaining finance - yes
Achieving success - no
Managing the business so that it develops in line with its coporate plan -no
Ensuring that the business is capable of devloping to its maximum ability - no
Managing a business that rewards talent and creates a firm foundation for the future. No
These are the simple facts than any investor in a company would look into before putting its own money in to it.
Under any normal circumstances David Moorcroft and the main board would have resigned over the last few years.
Coaching is in disarray.
We have duplication of positions and schemes within Sport England, English Athletics and UKA.
The sport is swimming in cash from the government (the £50m from NU is not actually £50m cash available to athletes and clubs).
Is the investment being spent wisely and are we employing the right people.
Based on the results and the way in which UKA work the answer must be no.
We have an Olympics coming up that will on the latest reports be a failure for us. We have to act together to get the sport back on line and if that means bringing in professional people from outside then so be it.
Yes it is a pity that some people decide to become personal when attacking others posts. I have never initiated this kind of response but its hard not to reply sometimes in the same vein or with a degree of sarcasm.
What you have said, regarding the serious stuff, exactly corresponds with all my previous posts on the subject since I started on this forum last October. I am glad to see that you and others (and no doubt many others who have not joined this AW forum) are also of the same opinion. The problem is UKA seem to be job protected and their stakeholders seem to be blind to their failings. Can there be any other organisation that can get away with it like this?
Do we wait until another World Championships and then another Olympic Games when they will roll out the same excuses or can we really do anything to get some semblance of success in 2012?
If this sport is going to survive and thrive we need more than to be simply told that we need to get behind UKA and New England Ltd to make it work whilst an expanding, well paid and comfortable administration sits back, directs and takes the credit.
As many agree, the time has come for new people to run the show. Real professionals who understand the sport and how it works. A team that can motivate and properly support the voluntary sector,
instilling the desire to co-operate with clear and transparent communication and understanding.
Moorcroft and co., are not about to leave their jobs despite any objective analysis of what they have failed to achieve in the past 9 years because Sport England and UK Sport don't know any better and some there would be afraid for their own jobs to admit failure
The only way (other than the fact that sport is going to look a shadow of it's former self which may finally drive the DMCS Select Committee and even the PM's office to take effective action) is for more and more of those concerned to join with ABAC as the most effective means of pressuring the government to impliment changes in the way the sports structure is financed and managed for the benefit and survival of the clubs.
Two things cannot be argued against:
UKA have failed in almost every area they were charged to improve over 9 years.
UKA's administration, costs and level of bureacracy is increasing year on year and is set to super-nova with the new England Athletics Ltd and the 9 hubs.