UK Athletics affiliation

I have recently moved down south and joined a road/xc club down here. We had our agm this week where it was voted overwhelmingly to affiliate to ARC going forward and resign from UK/England/SEAA. Our neighbouring club have done the same and both clubs have over 150 members. There were 2 main reasons for this, firstly cost and secondly admin with ARC being much cheaper and less paperwork. The only perceived benefit of staying with SEAA was 3 London Marathon places and maybe £2 off some races.

Whats anyone elses experience been as I think clubs have to decide who to affiliate to by 1st April.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

Whats anyone elses experience been as I think clubs have to decide who to affiliate to by 1st April.

---

Non-registered athletes will not be permitted to participate in English championships, e.g. the County, Regional and National Cross Country championships.

Athletes who want to be considered for International competition will also be barred from selection unless they are registered with EA.

Interesting to see what happens going forward as our club provided 4 members of the Bucks mens and womens team at the Inter Counties

p.s XC Runner that won't matter to 95% of runners as they aren't interested in/good enough to be running at county level, all they want to be able to do is run local road races with the minimum of hassle and cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

p.s XC Runner that won't matter to 95% of runners as they aren't interested in/good enough to be running at county level, all they want to be able to do is run local road races with the minimum of hassle and cost.

---

As I understand it, the clubs that are not affiliated to England Athletics their members will have to pay the unattached levy fee in road races. It will be interesting how they will administer this policy (as most races organisers won't have a clue which clubs have affiliated or not !)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

p.s XC Runner that won't matter to 95% of runners as they aren't interested in/good enough to be running at county level, all they want to be able to do is run local road races with the minimum of hassle and cost.

---

Lack of interest may be associated with lack of organisation within your Club.

A Team Manager is normally required for Clubs to enter athletes in many County, Regional and National events.

Whereas local road races usually only require athletes to enter to enter individually.

Its not lack of organisation, we are in the Chiltern League and another local league and have 2 of the best men and 2 of the best women in the county. I'd say around 20 people regularly run in the leagues and in the county xc championships which is just over 10% of the members. The rest either just train to keep fit or are happy running mid pack 10ks and half marathons and that I think applies to the vast majority of clubs in the country.

The sport has changed massively the last 25 years. When I first started the vast majority of club members were good runners and the number of clubs was much smaller and had grown up as either track clubs or 'harrier' clubs. Nearly all of them had very active junior sections from which we 'graduated' into the senior teams. Following the fun running boom there's many, many more clubs and lots of them are road running clubs. Most of them don't have a junior section as they have no track and field interest and/or facilities and the average age of members is probably over 40. The members of these clubs don't see why they should finance a bunch of suits whose only visible impact on them is to increase fees and regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

The members of these clubs don't see why they should finance a bunch of suits whose only visible impact on them is to increase fees and regulation.

---

So your Club wants to replace one bunch of suits with another bunch of suits whose only visible impact will be to introduce fees and regulation?

It's a bloody mess isn't it? :(

Its just the roadrunners echoing the FRA's 'what does UKA do for us?' debate - but 6 months on. Its not an either / or situation either, you can still affiliate to both organisations. Anyway, the South of England have always been against a membership scheme, they've never had one, never wanted one and are now fighting against it. Of course, UKA to get their funding from UK Sport have to jump when asked....I'm sure if I work hard enough I'll be able to link the blame back to Blair or Brown. J

'so your club wants to replace one bunch of suits with a new bunch of suits'

Well if you accept there has to be some kind of organisation to administer the system re insurance etc. the new bunch of suits are much fewer, much cheaper and don't want to know what every club member had for breakfast and the colour of their underpants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martins Mrs

As I understand it, the clubs that are not affiliated to England Athletics their members will have to pay the unattached levy fee in road races. It will be interesting how they will administer this policy (as most races organisers won't have a clue which clubs have affiliated or not !)

---

This unattached levy will also apply to cross country and trail running.

So far the FRA had resisted any attempt to apply an unattached levy, although some organisers chose to apply it to their events.

I have to agree with you that it is a logisitic nightmare to check and collect.

So far I have resisted any attempts to collect this unattached levy at events I have organised and I have never needed to pay it back to the NoEAA. However I understand that this situation will not be tolerated for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

It's a bloody mess isn't it? :(

---

There are a number of Associations who want obtain control of athletics and all believe that they can do a better job for their affiliated Clubs than other organisations.

Some of these Associations have recognised the need for an umbrella and now work with UK:Athletics, others are fiercely independent. e.g.

Road Runners Club

British Milers Club

Fell Running Association

100km Association

British Open Fell Running Association

British Association of Road Runners

Trail Running Association

Association of Running Clubs

Association of British Athletic Clubs

This phenomena is not new...at other times in the history of our sport when changes have been implemented, people have resisted and attempted to set up rival organisations. Very few of these break-away organisations have survived.

I would expect that several of the above associations will disappear when people realise that this plethora of organisations is fragmenting the sport and not contributing to the well-being of the athletes they are supposed to represent.

It is interesting to note that only those organisations that have learnt to work with England Athletics or UK Athletics have survived for any length of time!

I actually agree that everyone should work together, however I'd disagree that only those working with English Athletics survive - what about BOFRA and the fact that many of it's races go back to Victorian times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wycoller

I actually agree that everyone should work together, however I'd disagree that only those working with English Athletics survive - what about BOFRA and the fact that many of it's races go back to Victorian times.

---

BOFRA illustrate what is both the best and the worst apects of these small organisations.

BOFRA is a small association who represent a limited number of athletes in a geographically small part of the UK.

Despite its title, it is in fact a closed organisation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOFRA

Whilst the races are open to everyone, championship points can only be scored by B.O.F.R.A. members.

---

How does the BOFRA championships compare with the FRA British Championships?
Does fell running need two British champions each year?

It is unclear from their website how to become a member of BOFRA or the costs of affiliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XRunner

So far the FRA had resisted any attempt to apply an unattached levy, although some organisers chosen to apply it to their events.

---

Organisers of fell races in England should not be collecting unattached levies for their events. Permits and associated UKA insurance for fell races in England are obtained through the FRA and there isn't any mechanism in place for collecting levies.

The situation for fell/hill/mountain running in Scotland and Wales is different.

In Scotland, Scottish Athletics (equivalent of England Athletics and part of the UKA family) provide the Permits and organisers are expected to collect a £2 unattached levy from anyone who isn't an Individual Member of Scottish Athletics. Individual membership of Scottish Athletics costs £15 if you are a member of a club and £27 if you aren't!

Some race organisers in Scotland choose not to obtain a Permit from Scottish Athletics but to get insurance through Scottish Hill Runners (not affiliated to UKA). In this case an unattached levy will not be charged.

In Wales, Welsh Athletics is the equivalent body to Scottish Athletics in Scotland. I understand that they also expect unattached levies to be charged for races they Permit. However, insurance for a high proportion of races in Wales is obtained through the Welsh Fell Runners Association (not affiliated to UKA) and these races don't have Permits from Welsh Athletics and unattached levies are not charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRAFixtures

Organisers of fell races in England should not be collecting unattached levies for their events. Permits and associated UKA insurance for fell races in England are obtained through the FRA and there isn't any mechanism in place for collecting levies.

---

The Rivington Pike race needs kicking into touch then! They're charging £2 extra for unattached runners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

The Rivington Pike race needs kicking into touch then! They're charging £2 extra for unattached runners.

---

I have personally boycotted that race for a long time for that very reason.

'as I understand it members of clubs unattached to UK Athletics will have to pay the £2 levy'

As I understand it races affiliated by ARC will accept affiliation to either ARC or UK Athletics to claim the £2 reduction in fee. It would make sense if UKA did the same thereby making race organisers lives easier.

UKA are not generally known for backing down! No one is going to have a clue which clubs ar affiliated to who, let alone which athletes belong to which club. It's a mess.

Exactly Dominion, plus when you fill an entry form in it usually just asks whether you are a member of a club or not so unless race organisers have a full up to date list of which clubs are affiliated to UKA not ARC I don't see how they are going to be able to tell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

Exactly Dominion, plus when you fill an entry form in it usually just asks whether you are a member of a club or not so unless race organisers have a full up to date list of which clubs are affiliated to UKA not ARC I don't see how they are going to be able to tell?

---

The onus may transfer to the permit authority who could go through the list of results and then bill the race organiser for all athletes who, in their opinion, do not have the correct affiliation.

Races under different authorities will require individuals to declare their affiliation (and quoting their reference number) in order to establish if a levy should be charged.

Some runners will run under assumed names or give fictional information in order to reduce their entry fee. This will create even more difficulties.

The overall effect may be that entry fees for many races will be raised in order to reimburse the authorities and every athlete will suffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XRunner

Despite its title, it is in fact a closed organisation.

---

As I understand it the "open" in the BOFRA title dates from the days when there were both professional and amateur codes of fell running. All runners were able to take part in BOFRA races whereas only amateurs were allowed to enter FRA registered races. Any "amateur" running in a BOFRA race risked being banned from FRA races.

It is still the case that anyone can enter a BOFRA race but only BOFRA members qualify for the championship. This is similar to the FRA championship rules where an unattached (i.e. not a member of an athletic club affiliated to UKA) runner must be a member of the FRA to count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XRunner

The onus may transfer to the permit authority who could go through the list of results and then bill the race organiser for all athletes who, in their opinion, do not have the correct affiliation.

---

The claim of “governing” bodies to have authority to “permit” an enthusiast to organise a fell race is breathtaking. They have no conceivable authority to deny such an enthusiast permission to organise his race! We should stop using the term "permit". A “governing body” only has authority to govern those who choose to be governed by them. I choose not to be! They bestow their "permits" to suit their own priorities, not those of the race organiser.


99% of us don’t need a governing body. We need a sympathetic supporting association like the FRA should be when it frees itself from UK Athletics interference. Those of us who value the lack of bureaucracy that is the traditional basis of British Fell Running should raise two fingers to any governing body that threatens our simple traditions.

Exactly!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad&Jerry

Its just the roadrunners echoing the FRA's 'what does UKA do for us?' debate - but 6 months on. Its not an either / or situation either, you can still affiliate to both organisations. Anyway, the South of England have always been against a membership scheme, they've never had one, never wanted one and are now fighting against it. Of course, UKA to get their funding from UK Sport have to jump when asked....I'm sure if I work hard enough I'll be able to link the blame back to Blair or Brown.

---

You don't have to work hard to link blame to Brown and Blair for yet another fine mess.
They have created this Nanny State of control freaks who are happy to find ways to take our money and then abdicate from any responsible action.

Any way, I thought you said on the Feinsdale thread that you were not doing it because you were too busy doing something else...like posting on this thread while we were enjoying the sunshine, the curlews and flapjack .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wkb21

The claim of "governing" bodies to have authority to "permit" an enthusiast to organise a fell race is breathtaking. They have no conceivable authority to deny such an enthusiast permission to organise his race! We should stop using the term "permit". A "governing body" only has authority to govern those who choose to be governed by them. I choose not to be! They bestow their "permits" to suit their own priorities, not those of the race organiser.

99% of us don’t need a governing body. We need a sympathetic supporting association like the FRA should be when it frees itself from UK Athletics interference. Those of us who value the lack of bureaucracy that is the traditional basis of British Fell Running should raise two fingers to any governing body that threatens our simple traditions.

---

You are correct! There is no legislation that requires a race organiser to obtain a permit.

The governing bodies do have the authority to deny a permit to a race oganiser. However this does not prevent the organiser going ahead with his event.

Examples of this occur in fell running e.g if the FRA do not consider that the event is really a fell race or, more disturbingly, if they want to promote their own event without interference from any other events (and this has occurred a few years ago!).

However the recent plethora of small organisations who want to take your money and claim to represent their athletes does create some very disturbing trends. For example:

1. Who determines the Rules of Competition?
2. Who sets the standards for events?
3. Who determines the discipline required to prevent cheating?
4. Who organises the British of English championships?
5. Who selects athletes to represent their country?
6. Who should accept responsibilty for the development of the sport?

If your Club chooses to affiliate to another organisation, make sure you check that this new governing body has the capability and structure to manage your sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

UKA are not generally known for backing down! No one is going to have a clue which clubs ar affiliated to who, let alone which athletes belong to which club. It's a mess.

---

Don't laugh,I know that some race organisers have tried the "show us your registration card " bit before,but with the new England Athletics set up this becomes more of a reality.The blurb that I've received is that EA will actually be sending out the membership cards DIRECT to each runner rather than via the Club Secretaries.Although this isn't going to happen until September,so there will be a hiatus.

I'll be sending off my affiliations fairly soon.Being a mixed road and fell club we need some sort of common home and at least for the next year (where the flat £50 plus £3 per head isn't much different than last year's NoEAA) England Athletics seems the least worse option.:confused: :confused:

XRunner most of the members of clubs who affiliate to ARC won't be bothered about almost all of those points you raise, on average they will be 40+ who just simply want to run in the odd road race with the minimum of cost and fuss.

Infact similar to most fell runners, turn up , pay your entry fee, run, have a beer, go home!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XRunner

the disciple required

---

Jude springs to mind for most of these debates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

XRunner most of the members of clubs who affiliate to ARC won't be bothered about almost all of those points you raise, on average they will be 40+ who just simply want to run in the odd road race with the minimum of cost and fuss.

Infact similar to most fell runners, turn up , pay your entry fee, run, have a beer, go home!!

---

Then why bother affiliating to ARC or even being a member of a Club?

While I agree with you that most runners just want a good race, some form of organisation is required in order to ensure that the abuses perpetrated by a few people (whether athletes, promoters or administrators) do not spoil the event for the majority of people.

I also believe that higher levels of competition at National and International level are important for the sport and this needs to be managed, developed and funded.

It is highly unlikely that small organisations will bother with many aspects the sport, apart from their own self-interest, and one should question the real motives and reasons for setting up such groups.

'then why bother affiliating to ARC'...you answer that yourself because some kind of organisation is needed to administer insurance etc.
'why bother being a member of a club'...many answers, people to train with, race with, socialise with, share transport with, natter to after races.

If ARC works as it should it will simplify admin and reduce costs. The danger is if it is successful it will eventually mutate into something much bigger. What it won't do is employ loads of sports admin career professionals or subsidise other areas of the sport i.e track and field