...and as you will have noted from the Summary Note "All members of the sub-comittee, who best understand the issues, voted to stay affiliated".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Point made?
Printable View
...and as you will have noted from the Summary Note "All members of the sub-comittee, who best understand the issues, voted to stay affiliated".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Point made?
As somone whose participation is limited to occassionally turning up and paying £3 to charge across the landscape and who is fairly new to the FRA, can someone from the disaffiliation side please explain what the advantage of disaffiliation will be.
The report says the disadvantage will be about £7000 and more work for committee members. Which is quite pecise.
The advantages put forward for disaffiliation so far appear to be more vague - a desire to get rid of the bureaucracy and bad feeling for past injustice?
I read the bit in the mag and the hand out at Auld Lang Syne but what is the argument against staying affiliated and checking further down the line if problems really are in the past?
I appreciate there are some strong feelings on this and don't want to upset anyone by asking daft questions but I would like more information before using my vote.
err can the more experienced in these matters please explain to me why dissafiliating would revert us back to being a poor relation fringe sport
not really been around long enough to remember the bad old days before UKA
please can you explain how the fra sorted itself out then
thanks
I presume this is a reference to the greater athletics family (right up to IAAF) and so credibility, access to grants, routes into coaching, "clout", responsibility for organising eg England Internatinal Teams. Many athletics clubs have T&F, XC, Road and Fell members: all part, in the broader sense, of "athletics".Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
By being part of UKA the voice of fell running must be heard, say in the light of future legislation and it is better to be part of THE recognised body than some odd fringe association.
Some people will claim if the FRA disaffiliates nothing will change but that is not known; "a leap in the dark!" Certainly a few years ago when it was possible that the FRA would withdraw from organising English Teams for the World Trophy etc an alternative group was champing at the bit to take over.
The great and the good of the past including Mike Rose and I believe Dave Jones took the FRA into UKA. I have yet to see a sensible reason (I discount old grievances and bias) why we should come out.
true, i agree with you there GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
Another point to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
Not all FRA members on the Executive Committee voted in favour of the ballot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Member Ballot
As it says "more than 2 to 1" but does not say "3 to 1", I would have thought it must have been 11:5.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
Assuming my arithmetic hasn't deteriorated since I gave up teaching!:)
For the majority of members nothing will change if the FRA choose to disaffiliate from UKA.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
Athletes will still be able to run on the hills and races will still be organised.
The Committee have a very strong vested interest in remaining affiliated to UKA as they explained in their report.
If the FRA disaffiliate from UKA thenQuote:
Originally Posted by FRA Future Options Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swoop
best laugh on this thread so far :D
And that is just specious nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by summary and Graham B
The fact that they've spent lots of time on our behalf discussing the issues doesn't mean they understand them better. Or worse, for that matter.
Understanding is not the sole province of committee members...
Fatbloke,
I think the biggest issue is not knowing what UKA are going to swipe us with next. The insurance debarcle when they refused the FRA the right to insure celtic races is one example, the issue of graded officials another. At present these issues are resolved, albeit with celtic races not insured by the FRA. As a track / road / cross country / fellrunner for close to 30 years I'd prefer to see fellrunning as part of the wider 'athletics family'. At the present time I'm happy to support that. Will it still be my view in 12 months? Well that's down to how UKA treat us, and whether they have any more nasty surprises in store for us. With the head honcho's at UKA being replaced with a bloke from rugby (The sport, not the town) and a wheeler dealer from somewhere or another, neither of which have a running background (ok Ed Warner has done a couple of road races), I have a horrible suspicion that we'll be having this debate again in the not to distant future.
There are a lot of disenchanted folk in athletics, hence the formation of ARC, although at present it does look like the FRA are doing a far better job of negotiating with UKA than other 'waring factions'.
And that is just specious nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud
The fact that they've spent lots of time on our behalf discussing the issues doesn't mean they understand them better. Or worse, for that matter.
Understanding is not the sole province of committee members...[/quote]
ah but they are the ones on the commitee and we have all been invited over the past 3+ years since this forum has been set up! to either stand for election or vote when the papaer comes through the door.
if they don't understand the information given to them i'm sure they will find out what it means!
Right then, I'm resolved, again, to make this my final final final (serious...I reserve right to apply what passes for humour in my mind :) ) post on this thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
I cite in reply to your question Graham items 1 to 10 on pages 12/13 of Spring 2007 Fellrunner. Clearly these reasons are not felt to be sensible by you, and I do, genuinely respect your and anyone elses view to differ. But just cos you don't think these sensible, it doesn't mean they're not to anyone else. And the fact that we're having a blooming vote surely indicates that others think there's a case to be made.
You do need to be careful Graham, someone might accuse you of going "on and on trying to change peoples opinion" :rolleyes: (Sorry Iamana...that bit just wound me up a tad last night).
Right, that's it...I'm off "Down-the-pub"!
graham sorry if i seem to be a little confused on his matterQuote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
can you just give me a brief history on the birth of the FRA to the point where it entered into UKA
what caused it to join forces , what was the main reason ???????, there mus have been one , im even more confused now
Sorry Wheeze, I don't have a full set of NoEAA minutes dated back before 1990 so I cannot easily answer your question. I suspect that it was a Committee decision rather than a vote among member Clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Does anybody know when the FRA were first affilaited to NoEAA?
Graham,Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
I have recently had occasion, as FRA Fixtures Sec., to try to avail myself of this "vastly improved liaison and communication" with UKA.
In the Spring Fellrunner magazine and at the April FRA committee meeting Alan Barlow, Chairman of the UKA Competition Management Group, informed us that he had requested that the following be included in Appendix E, Endurance Event Officials, of the 2008 UKA Rule Book (to address the problems caused by this section in the 2006 Rule Book):
"1.4.3 Fell and Hill Running. This section does not apply to Fell and Hill Officials and the appropriate section of the Fell & Hill PST's Safety Requirements (a UKA document) referred to in rule 405 will be observed in its stead."
As Fixtures Sec. I liaise with all the organisers of UKA Permitted races in England to inform them of the rules they should comply with. At present they agree to comply with the "FRA Safety Rquirements for Fell Races".
I do not have a copy of the "Fell & Hill PST's Safety Requirements". Therefore 4 weeks ago I asked Alan Barlow to obtain and send a copy of the document to me so I could check to see if there were any differences between it and the FRA document.
I am still waiting for it. Surely it should be available off the shelf?
Is this representative of the "vastly improved communication"?
Margaret
Fell running is a fringe sport enjoyed by a minority of athletes in a few locations within England.Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
If I can indulge in a little criticism then I would say that the FRA have failed to develop the sport through-out the country since its inception.
The Sub-Committee Report does indicate a way forward in the future:It is only in England that we have chosen to distinguish a difference between trail running and fell running.Quote:
Originally Posted by Report
German cars have a far better track record than UKA dealings with FRA!Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
In any case I would recommend Japanese - same war but much better reliability
Ballot Paper Arrives????
Not here so far....... I'm getting quite jealous of you lot...
Maybe the sheep have snaffled mine... they were smirking when I got home this eve..
Graham,Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
Its time you stopped harping on about this - it isnt actually true!
As I posted previously:
Quote:
Understanding of issues - despite the claim that the sub-committee best understand the issues I feel that such an understanding is not restricted to them alone eg Dave Jones for one with 19 years service on the committee in major roles interacting with UKA and its predecessors has a very comprehensive overview of the situation which should not be dismissed lightly even by those who may not share his views on disaffilliation. In addition Ross Powell and Sheila Lloyd, both members of the FRA committee, have experience of confronting the same issues in Wales and decided to leave the UKA fold and establish an independant Welsh FRA (WFRA).
I voted.
That's it really, nothing else to add.
Got ballot paper today. I had heard something of this disafiliation but didnt really have an opinion so I turned here to the forum for further enlightenment.
Good to see theres argument for both sides. It's obvious (from the low post counts) that some people have registered (on the forum) primarily to keep an eye and to comment on this topic so it's obviously very important.
Having (eventuallly) read through all the posts I now know more but as a new FRA member with little experience of fellrunning races/issues etc. I have decided I will go with the committee reccomendation. I would probably have not voted at all but I can see it's important to try to get a decent %response.
New here. Can't keep quiet any longer. I appreciate the to's and fro's of the arguments, but am still utterly baffled by the 'ballot paper'. I've talked to various members from my own club and everyone thought the same – to send out a Voting Slip with such an unsubtle, cack-handed prompt of how to use it (which decision to vote for) is bizarre. It does the FRA (i.e. us all) no favours at all. It's precisely the reason why UK voters are staying away from the polling stations in droves – a cynical public getting more cynical every time they see how so-called 'democracy' is being manipulated by those in control of the process. Opinionating on ballot papers really is the transparent end of failing democracy.
Will you vote with the flock?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv Shack
if the FRA cuts off its ties with UKA will it mean a one FRA that covers all of the UK and not just England?
I'm new to FRA and my inclination is to go with the committee and see what happens "in the light of experience". My heart says differently and I think we need to look at just how much control UKA/England Athletics wants to assert over clubs and runners. This has caused a real rumble in road running where most clubs don't have elite runners and get nothing from UKA/EA except Insurance cover. The ARC has now come on board to challenge UKA on the road and my road club has decided to affiliate to ARC and remain with UKA for this year - to see what happens. Most road runners don't like the fact that affiliation charges will go up a lot and this EA idea of a licence for registered runners. UKA/EA don't seem to be listening.
I appreciate that FRA has a different set of problems, but if we look at the big picture you can see that the family of athletics is being run by a bit of a monster, that wants further control and cares little for ordinary road clubs or fell running. There are no Olympic medals or prestige in running over hills.
The real question is what degree of infrastructure is really needed to run fell running (or road running). Does Fell or Road Running need UKA, a licence or outside interference? Perhaps the middle way is to speak to TRA and see if resources can be combined for all "Off-Road" running.
I think that would be ideal and I think a lot of people in Wales , Scotland and England will try to make it work. (No experience/contact with our Northern Ireland fellows so can't comment there).Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady
I think you've done something to upset the Posty;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv Shack
I bet the bills are still getting through. Are you sure you paid your subs?
As a rank and file fell runner and competitor for the last 26 yrs I've never felt part of and never felt the need to be part of the so called "athletics family". Running in the hills and mountains of the UK is the total antidote to the tawdry, media driven, often incompetent, often sleazy, frequently bumbling, rule driven, control freaky, money obsessed world of athletics that we see portrayed on TV. My interest in seeing fell running as an international competitive sport is minimal. I'm not that bothered if we don't have England/GB eligibilty. I couldn't care less whether there is a negative affect on juniors and if they will be attracted into the sport. In fact I'd rather we didn't waste money on promoting so called junior fell racing. I suspect most of the current membership like me, came into the sport at a relatively advanced age following on from our other interests in the "great outdoors".
Insurance? Well I suppose that's something that anyone organising a race has to have just in case some prat falls over or gets mauled by a maniacal sheep and then decides to sue.
If the FRA and its committees and sub committees ceased to exist tomorrow, I would still run in the hills; there may be fewer races, but so what? When I started fell running in the early eighties there were a fraction of the races compared to now. My enjoyment was not the less because of this.
This is just my opinion. I'm not about putting forward heavily reasoned arguments one way or the other for staying affiliated, but my very strong "gut feeling" is to say to UKA "go henceforth from this place and procreate".
Quote FTE <say to UKA "go henceforth from this place and procreate".>
Would they need to have a properly trained and certificated organiser and time keeping official present?
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".