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.