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I was reading this page, obviously out of date now then.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.
If we are voting for what we feel is best for fell running. Then in the immediate future Fell running will remain a small fish in the athletics world until it is recognised by the award of olympic medals. In the present funding climate UKA will only ever allocate limited resources to the FRA while we remain a non-olympic sport.
There was good news recently that there will be some commonwealth trial events at Keswick (2009) which include an uphill only and uphill/downhill mountain race.
In the longer term this may lead to commonwealth games inclusion and then olympic recognition may follow and with it potential extra funding subject to medals or the hope of them. I suggest this is a long way off and who can say what the sports funding climate will be then. As an olympic sport only the national sports body would be recognised by the olympic committee, in this case UKA (i believe).
This is a similar situation to cyclo-cross in the cycling world, a number of years ago the British Cyclo Cross Assciation joined with the British Cycling Federation (now British Cycling). Costs for grass roots members went up, though i'm not sure for what benefit to the vast majority of those members. Events are now organised under the BC flag and another organisation 'The League International' where costs are cheaper and they communicate not just seemingly ask for the subs. BC were and still are not totally happy with the situation. CX events promoted under the TLI banner are in the minority though in the north east it serves the grass roots members well, though a lot is down to the riders and event organisers themselves.
In an ideal world perhaps we should be one big athletics family, though in the UKA world one size fits all. Will we be able to retain our identity under the UKA banner or will be administered into submission and lose the uniqueness that is fell running? I think the jury is out! The suggestion is that communications issues between the FRA and UKA are being ironed out and are/will improve and UKA will hopefully gain a better understanding of the FRA's needs. I am now undecided but edging towards give UKA a chance for abit longer, but with a critical watching brief.
Its been said in many earlier posts, but the ballot paper surprised me and i think could work against what the sub-committee is trying to achieve. It feels like the S-C is trying to lead the membership, an unbias statement should of been written in respect of the UKA affiliation and then the membership could truly make up its own mind.
The result which ever way it goes will i feel be tainted by the biased nature of the ballot paper and accompanying statement.
I gave much thought and consideration to all this, and I truly believe I have an open mind, but it was the sub committee report that persuaded me to vote for disaffiliation.
The report states that relations are improving with UKA, but there is no guarantee for the future.
My feeling is, that it is the basic instinct, perhaps the raison d'etre, for the UKA to increase bureaucracy and increase costs to pay for it. People, and juniors, have been running on the fells for years. Why do we need thousands of pounds in grants for this to continue?
My major concern with disaffiliation is the development of juniors and intermediates, and this is perhaps my biggest reason to vote no. The future of junior running lies with the clubs, and individual race organisers. UKA is likely to harm this by the onus on development being on an organisation remote from the grass roots, that wants people willing to give up their spare time and enthusiasm to jump through myriad and expensive hoops. If we disaffiliate then the onus remains on clubs and race organisers, who I believe, will keep it simple and effective.
I think if we cut loose from the UKA, then it will refocus the FRA and, more importantly , the individual clubs and organisers, on what is important, i.e. putting on simple enjoyable races, including those for juniors. If we stay part of the UKA, then our focus is on fighting a bureaucracy, on medals, on funding we don't need, and representation on arcane and irrelevant groups.
I don't view my no vote as a negative thing, more an attempt to stop the FRA moving in one (I think disastrous) direction, and redirect fell running back to what it's good at.
I would also state that it is in no way a vote against the committee, who are voted for by us, and represent us as honestly as they can.
Well said Pudgy! Frequent regular training for juniors can only be provided by Clubs which have weekly training regimes. Much of this will be general and relevant to the various athletic disciplines as I know from personal experience with Stockport Harriers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudgy
An examination of the leading positions in e.g. the 2006 Junior Championship race results (page 100 of the Oct. 2006 Fellrunner) supports this. They include several juniors from non-traditional fell running clubs such as E.Cheshire Harriers, Stockport Harriers, Liverpool Harriers and Leigh Harriers which all provide this type of training. Such multi-disciplinary and other clubs are likely to remain UKA affiliated and eligible for UKA financial support.
As Pudgy suggests the key role for the FRA should be to provide juniors with fell competition. In my opinion it is impractical for the FRA to provide anything other than a minimum of fell-specific training regardless of finance.
On this basis I do not consider there to be any overriding considerations with regard to juniors which would prevent disaffiliation from UKA.
Load of bollocks - are you saying that what the FRA currently provide is useless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy
Why do you want olympic recognition?
CLimbers are always on about this too.
Why will that be good for fell running?
Personally I'm happy with fell running being a fringe sport. I see no reason why it needs mass participation. I'd guess that well over 50% (I'd say around 75%) of fell runners enter the sport from either no sport or climbing, ball sports or road running at a more advanced age, generally around 30 years old.
For many fell running is the exact opposite of climbing, no gear, ease, speed, yet you still get the buzz and the social interaction.
Why do we need more money in the sport?
I don't think Fell running could EVER support professional runners as it is such a poor spectator sport. I've never watched a fell race and never want to, and I love fell running.
I'm not saying don't encourage people into the sport, this country's not exactly a beacon of fitness, and I think off road running has a major part to play in getting people fitter, but I don't see why it has to be an olympic sport.
Look at it road running is recognised by the OIC and the standards in the that and the number of kids entering at a young age are hardly that healthy in this county.
I much prefer considering reasoned arguments to one line inflammatory, rude comments.
My guess, based on personal experience only, is that Iain's view represents the general view of the 'rank and file' fell runner. We've had extended discussions on the subject of money/advertising/promotion and whether that's appropriate for a sport that takes its principal character from occuring in wilderness areas. I side with Iains point...what do we need the money for? Money f**ks things up. Lets not have that happen to fell running please.
If you examine the models used by the independent Welsh Fell Runners Association (www.wfra.org.uk) and Scottish Hill Runners (www.shr.uk.com), both organisations withdrew from the governance of the athletic governing bodies for their respective country. Both run their championships and other affairs free from interference by career professionals in stifling quangos that have much bigger priorities than fell/ hill racing. Despite this, in the case of SHR, many of their members are also members of clubs affiliated to the athletics governing body, Scottish Athletics. Other members of SHR choose to stay outside the athletic establishment so that they can organise races free from the sort of ignorant interference that leads to written risk assessments, qualification of officials, paedophile threat protection etc. Outside the control of the establishment, we are free to use our common sense and a vast pool of wisdom vested in people who have been racing up and down hills for two or three generations. With this freedom, we can protect the eccentric traditions of British fell/ hill racing from contamination by the European format and many other hazards. In Scotland, we are in a state of reasonable peaceful co-existence with the athletics governing body that not long ago threatened to excommunicate us (!) because we wouldn’t jump when their dynamic new chief executive said “jump”.
With FRA free from UKA, those who still want to be governed by UKA can still so choose, but not through their membership of FRA. If clubs cannot find a consensus on which way to go, they should look at Carnethy’s model, where we have an unaffiliated club, and a sister club that remains within the athletics establishment – you pay your money and take your choice, the latter being a lot more expensive than the former (but there’s a cut-price combined membership package). This sounds complicated but it isn’t, and it works very well.
WFRA and SHR have learned a lot over the past few years as we have asserted our right look after ourselves. It would be great if FRA could join us and we could once more have an independent all-UK Fell Runners Association with WFRA and SHR as regional sub-groups.
The biggest priority is to do what best suits most of our members. The design of the ballot form and findings of the sub-committee discredits all of us. Do your own analysis and vote accordingly.
Keith Burns
Keith, I think dragging the sub-committee into this is a bit strong. The report was helpful. It's the ballot paper that is the problem and the mindset of its author(s). I'm sorry Tony thought it was OK to go out in the form it did. It is blatantly coercive and patronising.
Other than that, I think you put a very well presented argument.
Some of the best postings on this entire thread are on this page (I except YT's grunt:rolleyes: ).
Anyone worried about juniors only has to go to a BOFRA event to see how a vibrant junior scene looks, and NO UKA money present or required.
It's pointless me repeating any of the excellent arguments above. Suffice to say - I agree we don't need the money and I agree money and development is probably a BAD thing for our lovely, friendly, sociable grass-roots minority fringe sport!
My NO vote went in the post this morning. :D
Fell running will never be a 'junior sport' as such. All good young runners want to run firstly on the track and the country to a certain extent. If you look at the top 'young' fell runners almost to a man/woman they focus on track or country or triathlon first. Once they've 'maxed out' in these areas they may focus on fell running at a later stage but probably after road running. You only have to look at Roadrunner, Oxo, Bisto etc. much as they love the fells they know there is more medal opportunity/recogniton/money on the track and roads.
I don't see why this will ever change or why we want it to? Thus the worry about funding for juniors is misplaced and fell running in my opinion will always be an 'older persons' sport.
Keep it simple, keep it cheap, keep it run by people who love the sport and have the sports best interests at heart.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that disaffiliation is the way forward. The arguments for a NO on the forum have been well put(mostly). Is there anyone out there who can give a positive reason for staying with UKA?
Was trying to stay out of this debate but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladerunner
I strongly disagree that juniors favour track and field or cross country over fell. My personal experience as a parent and club chairman is that a number of youngsters prefer fell if they live in a fell running area.
My view is that youngsters are best exposed to all disciplines and shouldn't be encouraged to specialise until at least their mid teens. The only problem seems to be stopping some of them running on the track on a Saturday and on the fell on the Sunday!
Wycoller do you think the 'top' runners who do different disciplines favour fell, for instance does Alistair Brownlee favour fell over triathlon or Josh Moody fell over 800m/1500m? I know lots of youngsters do lots of disciplines but I'm not sure we need to be financing them doing fell, I mean all they need is a hill isn't it, no warm weather training for the hardy youngsters ;-)
Well there are at least 11 who should be able to...Quote:
Originally Posted by Routemaster
WRT my “grunt”.
FRA’s current junior training is excellent, and there are a lot of junior’s getting a lot out of it, and taking up an interest in what is often thought of as an “old man’s sport".
I think we should remember these young people when we are considering the future.
Although it shouldn’t affect whether we should disaffiliate or not, we should simply accept that the FRA ought to try to maintain its current exemplary contribution to junior fellrunning, whatever the outcome.
As oppose to the suggestion from Baldy that we can simply ditch them,
YT,Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug
Kindly don't misquote me. I didn't make any suggestion about the FRA ditching juniors.
Yo Baldy
I didn't quote or misquote you.
But what you said was tanatamount to ditching.
The FRA currently provides much more than competition and it should continue to do so whether it stays or leaves.
No doubt you have enormous experience of training juniors at Stockport, but, as far as I'm aware, Stockport features pretty minimally on the fellrunning scene. Perhaps you are unaware of the FRA's efforts in this area?
YT
Lets vote to keep incontinent outbursts and personally directed comments out of this otherwise useful debate. Any one wanna poll?:p
I quite agree. Although when you choose a monicker like Baldy, almost anything will sound rude, won't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Baldy should have picked a nice name, like mine.
OK, this is a brainstorm only, cause i've just come accross another article about Keswick securing 'the Commonwealth fell and mountain running event'.
Could it be that this would make us want to keep ties with UKA??
NOT cause we want the extra publicity & glitz & increased numbers on the fells, but cause we want to control them...!!! Would there be a day when environmental impact will need to be limited due to more people taking up the sport than the fells can cater for, whether we like it or not?
Or would the FRA not have any involvement/control anyway???
Someone posted earlier that this is ages away, but 2009 seems pretty close to me...
But if landowners get p****d off due to too many folk training/running through their land & others get twitchy about erosion, could that not threaten races??? :confused: :confused: :confused:
The climbers who go on about this are those in power :) or who want to make money out of the sport, most climbers couldn't care lessQuote:
Why do you want olympic recognition?
CLimbers are always on about this too.
Bill
Apologies for the delay in replying but I had to do a bit of work and then went to a very well organised race with my three kids and lots of other juniors - thanks go to Brett.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladerunner
I didn't refer to all juniors and my comments were nothing to do with funding or the current vote.
OK my one post on this subject.
FRA Future Options
I (was) volunteered to chair the sub-committee, Alan Brentnall, Neil Goldsmith, Paul Sanderson and Sue Becconsall were the other members. Anonymous? I didn't think so. We had to put our personal views to one side and try to just look at facts. About a dozen pages were trimmed down to nine, your committee all agreed to the summary note as seen on the ballot paper.
Your names are on the ballot paper, no apologies - it was the easiest way to waste as little members money as possible.
Incoherent, biased and patronising are some of the words used to describe the form, and there was me thinking it was just right in explaining what we thought and giving you the chance to clearly vote!
Right back to marking - keep up the colourful debate.
Chris Knox
Thanks for your candid summary Chris. I appreciate the effort that went into the report and the ballot form but I think with respect to the ballot form it is a classic case of someone too close to the issues drawing up what they honestly thought was a fair document. Believe me, it reads as anything but. Sorry, but there it is.
Simon,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I'll balance the above comment against your unchanging, blinkered antagonism to UKA.
OK?
The Summary Note was deliberately produced by someone NOT on the Sub Committee and therefore NOT "too close to the issues".
It was then modified and finally approved by the full FRA Committee.
Of course 16 + people with a range of backgrounds, experience, individual perspectives, views of UKA & etc could all be wrong...or it may be you just don't like the facts presented.
The ballot paper I received helpfully made it quite clear what the FRA Committee thinks and invited me to vote Yes or No. There was no loaded revolver coercing me to vote in any particular direction. Was there with yours?
Regards,
Graham
Thanks Chris. Your hard work is much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris K
i will second that colinQuote:
Originally Posted by Swoop
a bit more appreciation on here i think !!!
OK, so I'm unchanging but that is because I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments put forward in favour of staying affiliated. I have been willing to listen to and debate those arguments...hardly a blinkered approach!Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
If you cannot see the coercive element in the way the ballot paper was worded then that is your problem, not mine. Did you write it?
Wheeze, the dictionary definition of coerce is:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
EITHER to restrain or dominate by force
OR to compel to an act or choice
OR to achieve by force or threat.
None of these apply to the summary on my ballot form.
If I disagree with what the Committee think, I don’t believe that they are coercing me simply by honestly writing their beliefs down for me to see.
To think along those lines certainly is blinkered.
I agree. For example, the use of loaded phrases like "your elected committee" when simply saying "the elected committee" would have sufficed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
AndyW.