Printable View
Ian, the WFRA is completely independent from Welsh Athletics (current name for the previously known AAW) which is part of the UKA family. Please see below earlier posting from this thread by Welsh Harrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier
I was reading this page, obviously out of date now then.
http://www.welshathletics.org/news/news0502.htm
Cheers
Iain
Sorry Iain WFRA is not part of AAW.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
There is however a Welsh Athletics organisation namely WMRA (Welsh Mountain Running Association as opposed to World Mountain Running Association) look up http://www.welshathletics.org/ and click on MOUNTAIN in top right of webpage.
WMRA take Welsh runners to internationals and organise a small number of events
WFRA is completely independent of AAW, has over 300 members, organises and insures over 80% of fell races in Wales (including Foel Fras last weekend). At our recent AGM the vast majority of members voted to support FRA should it disaffiliate from UKA. Bureaucracy is minimal, expense is minimal and we are not at war' with AAW - just enjoying doing our own thing which is keeping a healthy race programme alive in Wales.
Insurance for race organisers is through Perkins Slade which is one of the largest independent insurance brokers in the UK and has a particular interest in Sports insurance (SHR also uses Perkins Slade).
Iain - Margaret beat me to it!
aah OK, that was what I was getting confused with.
Iain, that page from the old AAW was obviously someones guess at what was going on. Having been at the inaugural meeting of the newly formed WFRA and a committee member since then, I can honestly say that the WFRA has never been under the auspices of AAW. It formed only to be independent.
There has been some blood-letting on the WA side of things (which someone from WA may like to speak to), something that has been conspicuously absent in the WFRA.
Yeah I read again, and got confused and thought it must ahve split. Anyway for others here is the quote which misled me:
"The WFRA recognises that people have different opinions about the best direction fell-running should take in relation to UK Athletics, FRA, AAW, etc. People also have different perspectives, depending whether their main interest is in personal enjoyment, competition, serious competition, international selection, junior development, etc. However, Welsh fell running currently operates as an athletic discipline under the umbrella of the AAW, and whatever the eventual outcome, the WFRA is being launched as a body within the current AAW structure, and will work within the AAW Constitution. Any issues where this Constitution is felt to be inappropriate for fell running will be dealt with through negotiation with AAW Officers or Management Board, and if necessary Motion(s) to the AAW AGM. The WFRA will seek to develop, through wide consultation, a structure and a constitution that addresses all the different interests, rather than favouring one at the expense of another. These will be presented for adoption at the WFRA AGM (date to be confirmed).
On the question of the future organisation of UK Fell Running, the WFRA starts from the premise that any move to a more independent position is only realistically possible as a joint arrangement with Fell-Running bodies in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a legitimate organisation representing fell running in Wales, the WFRA will work to develop a constructive discussion with the English FRA, PST, and fell running bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, on the future structure of UK fell running, whether within or outside UK Athletics. Opinions will be actively encouraged from all those with an interest in the sport, so that any decision finally taken will have the support."
Anyway thanks for clearing that one up.
Despite being a forumite since 2005, I have (somehow) managed to remain (almost) oblivious to the "ins and outs" of the whole FRA and UKA debate last year. Sorry Stick - I have my head in the clouds!
In an earlier thread I was of the opinion that I'd go with the committee recommendation. An easy decision because, like many other forumites I'm sure, we assume the committee has the best interests of the FRA at heart.
However, subsequent posts have raised some *interesting* points, almost all critical of the way this has been presented to the membership. I also thought it strange that the ballot paper was so wordy and obviously biased to favour one opinion.
I will vote - but what I have learnt from this forum about the whole matter has not only delayed me from posting my vote off straight away, but I now have doubts that my vote is the right one.
Wouldn't a simple "why we should remain affiliated" and "why we shouldn't" have been a more useful accompaniment with the voting paper?
I'd say if you don't like how the ballot is presented, write a letter to the committee (although i guess we've got the idea by reading the forum), but don't vote the opposite way out of spite!??
As mentioned, it's not a vote of confidence & the committe gets elected at the AGM in October. So you're not voting for or against the committee but for what you think is right for the future of fellrunning!!:confused:
Britta
Aye, Britta, but I wouldn't vote "out of spite" - I don't think I'm that sort of chap! :D
For most of the membership, does it all come down to the **presentation** of the case at the end of the day? Not often you receive a ballot paper telling you to vote a certain way! :eek:
Ultimately, there's always the annual opportunity to change things by vote.
That's enough from me.