Ballot Paper Arrives

[Tuffer]

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.

[Pudgy]

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.

[Baldy]

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.

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.

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.

[Yorkshire Thug]

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?

[IainR]

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.

[Wheeze]

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.

[wkb21]

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

[Wheeze]

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.

[Fellhound]

Some of the best postings on this entire thread are on this page (I except YT's grunt ).

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.

[Bladerunner]

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.