Hi daz,
SHR has about 490 members. Our insurance is free - regulations prevent us from selling it on.
Hi daz,
SHR has about 490 members. Our insurance is free - regulations prevent us from selling it on.
If FRA were to follow the WFRA/ SHR route, the dream scenario would be for an all-UK alliance of FRA/ WFRA/ SHR, independent of the athletics governing body. We could restore an all-UK calendar and common, pragmatic safety guidelines. Insurance of members for public liability as competitors or race organisers would come in at around £2 - £3 per member per year.
There is no reason why a good working relationship with UKA should not be set up. This would leave fell runners in control of their own sport, co-operating with the athletics governing body, or restraining it where necessary.
It would leave freedom of choice for the elite and the rest of us. It would give us the power to protect the British fell racing format, and to support change where we approved of it. The relationship could be complementary, but we would retain ultimate control of our own destiny.
Everyone wins under this scenario except the professional job creators and hangers-on in the government quangos.
So let's get on with it!
I voted for dissaffiliation but felt a little uncomfortable in not supporting the committee who I believe do a good job and have our interests at heart.
If the descision is take to dissaffiliate then I hope the next logical step will be to re-unite the UK under a single organisation. Do members of the other separate organisations think likewise or have these organisations themselves gone too far down their own paths?
no i was just thinking that was it an easier decision for the scottish and welsh to go there way because there insurance was a lot smaller than the policy the fra would need
It would not prevent some other organisation or another group of individuals taking over control of fell or hill running within England and maintaining an affiliation with UKA.Originally Posted by wkb21
It is possible that fell running will become an isolated, minor sport in the English Lake District with no control over the sport.
That is always possible, but experience in Wales has shown that as far as domestic competition is concerned most race organisers are taking the lead by chosing to go with the disaffiliated WFRA rather than Welsh Athletics/UKA which still offers UKA Permits/insurance. Why should it be any different in England?
As I understand it the situation in Scotland is somewhat different. Whilst SHR offer insurance to race organisers who are members, insurance/Permits are obtained in significant numbers from SHR, Scottish Athletics/UKA and other sources. Nevertheless SHR maintain the main Scottish race Calendar and "peacefully co-exists" with Scottish Athletics/UKA.
So why are the majority of the FRA committee so wary of independance? Whilst the FRA remains affiliated to UKA we are prevented by UKA from forming an all UKA alliance with WFRA and SHR which , in my opinion, would be the best way forward for the domestic UK wide race Calendar.
I am so pleased to have the views of Daz who, to my mind represents the straightforward fell runner who has no vested interests other than a love of the sport.
In Wales we have about 250 members of WFRA. I can honestly say that for the first time in 20 years we have more clarity of purpose and kinship than at any time before. I love my my sport again.
Daz, lets meet up at a race soon. What events do you have planned over the next couple of months? I'd like to race in your neck of the woods.
I am a life member of FRA and would love to be reunited.
I do not believe that UKA are actively preventing the FRA representing all UK fell or hill runners.
Trail running does not have separate Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish sections.
Up to Oct 2004 the FRA was organising a race Calendar throughout the UK. Race organisers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were registering their events with me as FRA Fixtures Secretary and thereby obtaining their UKA insurance through the FRA.
In Oct 2004 UKA insisted that events should be registered/insured only through the relevant UKA national organisation ie Scottish Athletics, Welsh Athletics and NIMRA outside England. Therefore from 2005 onwards the FRA has only been able to provide registration/UKA insurance for races in England organised by FRA members.
As I understand it Scottish Athletics, Welsh Athletics and NIMRA wish to manage events in their own countries, as indeed they have every right to do. UKA are supporting the requirements of their constituent national organisations.
Therefore if grassroot fellrunners in England, Scotland and Wales would like to see the FRA working with the non-UKA affiliated SHR and WFRA with a common race registration/insurance system, it cannot be achieved whilst the FRA remains affiliated to UKA!
Margaret is correct. This leads to barmy anomalies. The Yetholm Race is organised by an English club on Scottish soil, so they are required by UKA to seek a "permit" from SAL at extra cost (if possible at all), despite their existing affiliation to the English governing body. The same applies to the (Scottish) Isle of Jura Race, organised by Tordmorden Harriers (English). So both clubs insure through SHR (who will insure your race for any venue).
By the way, SHR does not issue "permits". It promotes open access to hill racing. SHR simply insures races for their members, and does not charge "unattached levies" for non-members. We must get rid of this absurd concept of "permits". A governing body cannot "permit" or deny me a race if I do not permit them to govern me!
Traprain Law Race this afternoon - all welcome (except governing bodies) at no extra charge whatever your affiliation or lack of it!
Last edited by wkb21; 09-06-2007 at 09:38 AM. Reason: clarification
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote