I have voted but now I've changed my mind:o .
Printable View
I have voted but now I've changed my mind:o .
Being new to fell running and therefor joining the UKA debate late, I am wondering, if we vote to stay with UKA and they prove to be untrustworthy and nothing much changes, :rolleyes: when can this subject be raised again?
I admit I haven't read the rule book because I get confused with point 7a refering to point 9b and the if's and but's etc etc.
If we decide to stay in and the committee and members subsequently decide that was aQuote:
Originally Posted by DanAzz
bad move then I am there need be no delay in reversing the decision.
However if we leave UKA do we know if they would have us back if we change our minds?
I'm afraid that I'm disappointed with the way the committee is presenting this important matter. The 'report' is barely coherent in places and fails to adequately set out the background to the issues for the lay reader (presumably a significant number of those voting). It doesn't say who the sub-committee are nor does it spell out the 5 areas they looked at. I'll highlight one issue here ... the report gives chapter and verse on the finances of BOF but fails to give any relevant financial background for the FRA. We're told that insurance may cost £7000 and the total cost of disaffiliation may be £15k p/a but where is the context for this? Is this a drop in the ocean or a significant part of income? What is the FRA's annual revenue, where does it come from and where does it go to? Without putting the financial issues in context how is anyone to make an assessment?
I'm also concerned, like many, with the ballot paper which is (IMHO) juvenile and patronising. I fail to see why, after going to the time and trouble to mailshot the entire membership with this, the report could not have been included - the incremental cost of photocopying would have been minimal and all those voting would have been guaranteed the opportunity to read it. If the committee were really concerned about the costs, the June magazine is only a few weeks away and everything could have been mailed out with that (saving over £1000 in postage by my reckoning).
I formed an opinion on this issue some time ago. I appreciate the time and trouble the committee have taken to look into this area and I've been prepared to be influenced by cogently presented, reasoned argument. Unfortunately, the message coming from the committee via the ballot paper seems to be "trust us, we know best". Emotive language like "leap in the dark ... poor relation fringe sport" is not helpful (however, this may be exactly what some of the membership want!). I would also have appreciated seeing the views of those committee (and ex-committee) members who are opposed to UKA affiliation presented in a balanced manner.
Steve Temple (FRA member and mid-pack runner since 1998)
It would be nice to know how the WFRA work out their insurance?
Aren't they away from Welsh Athletics?
Looks like WFRA are part of AAW, which I didn't know.
I saw this lot in the I Cafe while I was stateside. You’re nothing if you’re not predictable, you lot!!
How on earth could you ever have voted in such a bunch of unthinking, callous b@stards as this committee? And fancy putting their own thoughts down on the ballot sheet! What on earth were they thinking of?
Surely the only thing left is to do is to sack the lot of them in November and vote some people in who really know what they’re doing.
Seriously criticism is always easier than doing something. IMHO (as we say on the web) whatever this bunch published, they would probably have fallen foul of a large proportion of us forumites.
What would you think of having a paid administration (like BOF and UKA!!)? After all, perhaps you just got exactly what you paid for!!
Alternately another controlling body could move in with UKA and take over control of fell running within England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swoop
This would isolate the FRA and leave them, in their own words, as a poor relation fringe sport.
steve t
we discussed this concern regarding insurance costs and im sure someone mentioned that fra has around £80,000 in the kitty.
which sounds like the insurance annual premium costs would not be a problem.
easy peasy
BUT my main concern was that if someone ever claimed , if we break away and become a small policyholder as it were, we could come unstuck with future rising premiums and court costs etc etc etc.
if we remain with UKA , effectivley we are still part of the big fish in the pond brigade and not the little tiddler.
£ 80,000 doesnt go a long way when solicitors costs can be upward of £ 125 per hr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug
Too true.
Obviously what the Committee should have done was spend hours discussing the issue but kept its views secret from the members it represents.
Then if the overall vote is a "No" it could have said "Oh dear. What a pity. Everyone who worked on the subcommittee thought "Yes" and so did the majority of the full FRA Committee. But you cannot blame us for anything. We kept our thoughts to ourselves".