An Open Letter to the Board of England Athletics
22nd October, 2012
Dear Sirs,
We are aware that the AGM of England Athletics is taking place on 27th October. We note that the published agenda for the meeting does not refer to discussion of the recently proposed increase in England Athletics registration fees.
While we believe such a discussion needs to take place, given that many clubs will not have planned to attend the AGM and would have difficulty in arranging for representation at the meeting at short notice, we do not believe it should be added to the agenda at this time. However, we remain strongly of the view that there needs to be a full and open debate on this issue, without undue delay, through some appropriate forum: if necessary, culminating in an EGM.
We have arrived at this belief, not only as a result of our own consideration of the proposals and the soundings we have taken of our respective memberships (in the time available since the announcement you will appreciate that it has not been possible for all of us to consult properly and fully with all of our members, but we shall be doing so), but also from the feedback we have received from very many friends and colleagues in the sport from other clubs.
At this stage, we should make it clear that we fully accept that our sport faces substantial financial challenges and that major changes will need to be made to the status quo if we are to continue to be able to balance our books - this is something that most of us confront on a daily basis, and have done so for many years at club level – but that change will need to be properly managed if it is to have any chance of carrying the membership of our sport with it.
We also believe that you have substantially under-estimated the level of disquiet and concern that your proposals have caused to the vast majority of those who you seek to represent, namely, the clubs (often referred to as 'the grassroots'). This disquiet and concern not only relates to the size of the proposed increase(s), but also to the manner in which these proposals have been presented. For the good of the sport, we consider that you need now to provide a full and transparent explanation, supported by relevant figures and other evidence, of how you arrived at your proposals and how you seek to justify them. (The existing sparse explanation, devoid of meaningful detail and of allocation of cost, is woefully inadequate to achieve this purpose.)
In this respect, we would suggest that it would be appropriate for you to address at least the following questions, which are by no means intended to be an exhaustive list of the issues that are being raised with us:
- What other options (and combinations of options) were considered as a way of addressing the current financial challenges (e.g., specifically, cutting overheads and increasing charges at the point of delivery so that those who obtain the most benefit contribute the most)? (As clubs, for many years we have continually had to pursue ways of reducing our cost base and of operating more efficiently, as well as foregoing many 'nice to haves' as we simply couldn't afford them)
- On what basis was it concluded that, regardless of the general economic climate, a four-fold increase would be an acceptable solution?
- What additional income do you believe will be obtained from your proposals and, in arriving at this figure, what assumptions have you made about the probable decline in overall membership? Did you have any significant discussion about the potential negativeimpact on participation in our sport and the inconsistency with the 'legacy' initiative, in relation to which it is clear that much time, effort and cost has been deployed in the recent past?
- How appropriate do you believe the various comparisons made with other sports, that you use in an attempt to justify your proposals, really are? In many of these cases, are we not really looking at apples and oranges?
- How do you intend to administer and enforce payment of registration fees going forwards? Have you held any detailed discussions with the membership secretaries of clubs as to the substantially increased workload this will entail in practice? (What do you consider would be a fair commission to pay to clubs for administering this system for you?) In the past, other than perhaps at major championships, there has been next to no checking of the status of athletes, such that a significant number have failed to pay the existing fee with impunity.
- How widely did you consult with your membership before issuing these proposals? With the benefit of hindsight, do you believe this was adequate and, if so, why? In particular, do you believe that this process was fully transparent and complied in all respects with good governance practices?
It is only by providing the requested information, and by answering the relevant questions we have raised, that those you represent – and the public who provide substantial, albeit decreasing,support for our activities through their tax revenues – may be able to consider properly whether your proposals are in fact fair and in the overallinterests of our sport and whether we should continue to have faith in those who purport to represent our interests.
We would encourage other clubs who share our views to make this known to you by sending an e-mail to you c/o the Editor of Athletics Weekly.
Yours faithfully,
Tim Soutar
(Chairman, Blackheath & Bromley Harriers AC)
Kevin Angell
(Secretary, Bexley AC)
Mick Bond
(Chairman, Cambridge Harriers)
Jerry Odlin
(Chairman, London Heathside AC)
Dennis Orme
(Secretary Harrow AC)
Bryan Smith
(for and on behalf of Shaftesbury Barnet Harriers)
Ray Gibbins and John Mercer
(Enfield & Haringey Athletic Club)
Tim Wright
(Orion Harriers)
Ken Pike
(Kent AC)
Hercules WimbledonAC