Emily Pidgeon out of World Juniors?

Just leave the girl alone - why are you speculating on the career of a 16year old girl. I'm sure she can sort it out herself. If she wants your opinion im sure she will phone you for it. These thongs just get built up so much - shes probably not got any problems except for idiots speculating about her every move on american running websites. Capiche nob heads?

She is one fit mumma though - one up the bum for fun.

She wears "thongs" ????? Maybe that is part of the problem as it would be very unusual running attire

BTW wrote:

Just leave the girl alone - why are you speculating on the career of a 16year old girl. I'm sure she can sort it out herself. If she wants your opinion im sure she will phone you for it. These thongs just get built up so much - shes probably not got any problems except for idiots speculating about her every move on american running websites. Capiche nob heads?

She is one fit mumma though - one up the bum for fun.

BTW wrote:

Just leave the girl alone...

Sure wrote:

Pidgin english's argument for the UKA's contract boils down to; TRUST US, TRUST US, don't read the contract, don't worry, be happy, we're honest, HONEST.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like duck, it probably is a DUCK.

The arguments used by Pidgin english are one's commonly used by scoundrels. If as Pidgin english fervently there is nothing to hide why act like there are things to hide? And why such a long contract, if not to cover details, that can only make a lawyer happy in a potential dispute (and I am not talking about the athlete's lawyer)?

Pidgin english does not really make UKA look very good. A lot of attacks, but very few answers.

Leadership is about acting in such a way so that people like to follow, not using power & contracts to enforce compliance...

...and Leadership seems to be in very short supply...

Or, like I wrote yesterday:

"What was it that Lord Acton said in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton again... ...oh yes... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People with little power tends to want more, and more... ...seemingly striving towards the absolute version..."

Please explain to a simple person what this has to do with the discussion about Emily going or not going to Beijing.

Wonderful quote, but is it relevant ?

Whos is to say what is relevant or not? Me thinks the lady does protest too much. Do you have a little soft spot for the pigeonster?

Simpleton wrote:

Please explain to a simple person what this has to do with the discussion about Emily going or not going to Beijing.

Wonderful quote, but is it relevant ?

UKA wants everybody to sign their contract... ...without reading, or understanding what it implies...

It seems Emily, and people around her understand the wisdom of reading, and understanding a contract before making a decision to sign, or not... ...this seems to be taken as an insult at UKA.

UKA/Pidgin english's argument for signing boils down to: TRUST US, TRUST US, don't read the contract, don't worry, be happy, we're honest, HONEST.

and as

Great Expectations wrote:

"An expectation of selection is that all team members travel with, and are part of, the team preparation process." - Dave Collins

So when does an expectation become a neceassity?

this may be a reason to doubt them...

David, you are a man that knows these things, where does the funding for the World Junior Champs come from ? Is it Government money, is it sponsorship that UKA raise ?

It seems likely that it will cost at least £1000 per team member, but are UKA responsible to anyone for the use of thier funding ? Thanks.

Thank you for the polite reply.

Why do you think UKA want people to sign the contract without reading it ?

I thought that it had been looked at by lots of people - at one stage adidas and Nike were saying dont sign, then do sign. So they must have seen it. So what makes you think UKA dont want anybody to read or understand it ?

I also thought that all funded athletes (i.e. those who will be given contracts) had a point of contact at UKA - surely this is something that the athlete would discuss with them ?

If Pidgeon has not read or discussed the contract with anyone at UKA surely that is her fault ?

Or am I missing something here ?

Why is Emily not wearing her Nike gear any more, am I wrong in saying Nike have not renewed their contract with her - please correct me if I'm wrong. In speculation if Nike wont renew their contract with her, a big company like that who would surely jump at having such an up and coming athlete, have the camp therefore managed to alienate them as well??

You seem to mis-understand; Pidgeon probably has read & understood the contract...

See

I wrote:

either

she's an avid reader of this board and has taken up with the dont wear nike campaign,

or she has got a new deal with a different supplier and fallen out with Nike in the process

OK I misunderstood. So presumably all of the athletes who signed have read the contract, if they had issues or were concerned then they discussed these problems with UKA and then signed. I think I was mislead because you said that UKA wanted them to sign without reading..........

So that still leaves me slightly mystified as to why all of the athletes have signed and Emily wont.

adidas and Nike think its OK, a hundred athletes at least think its OK, but Emily doesnt.

I think that you are suggesting that they were bullied or given no option. Certainly there seems to be no option re Lottery Funding, but that is controlled by UK Sport. Do you think that UK Sport have allowed UKA to add extra conditions in to the contract that are inappropriate ?

Who's her new supplier then as she is not wearing any new gear from another company.

Any way enjoyed reading through the debate, putting in my two pence worth, but am now off home - another hard day at the office!! How many of you others out there posting were supposedly as busy at work as I was!

I see myself coaching in the future. If i have any international class athletes, i would not want UKA interfering in their preparation.

If an athlete's results are good enough to warrant funding, then i'd have no problem with a very simple annual contract - e.g. We'll give you this financial help if you agree to prepare to represent GB in these major events in the calendar.

UKA should not have influence on how the athlete prepares. Coaches and athletes need to be free to try things out - even when these things are not common practise - its the only way innovation happens. If we only let athletes train / prepare using established methods, we will always lag behind the innovators in the world.

Do you know any athletes on funding ? If so can you give examples of how UKA interfere ?

Somerset lad wrote:

Do you know any athletes on funding ? If so can you give examples of how UKA interfere ?

Please god!

Does anyone know what these contracts actually say or have any idea how much practical flexibility is likely to be applied?

This is crucial to the whole argument which, at the moment, seems to be conducted entirely by people who know (or claim to be in the know).

So come on, what is in there?

Lets not mix two different issues up here.

Athletes have been on funding for some time, and are 'managed' but someone at UKA. My question was how does this managing spill over in to interference ?

The contract situation is different. Athletes will not have operated under the new contract for very long so there is little point asking - how is it going.

However many athletes will have had discussions with their 'manager' and should have a clear picture of how the new scheme works.

What we need are people directly involved to post their experiences on here.

Are UKA interfereing or (as I am sure they would claim) trying to support athletes and coaches ?

If we knew the answer to these questions then we would be in a much better position to decide if Emily was right to refuse to sign, or not.

? wrote:

Does anyone know what these contracts actually say or have any idea how much practical flexibility is likely to be applied?

This is crucial to the whole argument which, at the moment, seems to be conducted entirely by people who know (or claim to be in the know).

So come on, what is in there?

I believe you can download a copy from UKA's website.

I think it's at the link below

? wrote:

Somerset lad wrote:

Do you know any athletes on funding ? If so can you give examples of how UKA interfere ?

Please god!

Does anyone know what these contracts actually say or have any idea how much practical flexibility is likely to be applied?

This is crucial to the whole argument which, at the moment, seems to be conducted entirely by people who know (or claim to be in the know).

So come on, what is in there?

For example (just one picked a random):

"8.2 If, at any time during the Contractual Period, the Athlete develops any new technology or process with regard to any Equipment, training or competition analysis, or other matter, which provides (or may provide) a sport performance benefit and this technology or process is discovered or developed substantially as a result of the performance of his/her obligations under this Agreement and/or relating to the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Team and WCP (the �Developed IP�), the Developed IP shall vest in UKA, and the Athlete hereby assigns by way of present assignment of future copyrights all rights, title and interest that he/she may have in relation to such Developed IP to UKA absolutely."

Anyone understanding this ought to be absolutely horrified by the expansive wording; that in effect gives the UKA the right to ANY and ALL ideas an athlete may have...

NO DECENT ORGANISATION PUSHES YOUNG PEOPLE TO SIGN CONTRACTS LIKE THIS WITHOUT INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE!!!!

And even lousy lawyer ought to be able to explain that it is one scary contract...

...with Dispute resolution in the hands of UKA...

9.1 Any complaints, differences or disputes which may arise between the Parties concerning or arising out of or in relation to this Agreement or the application of any of the ancillary policies and procedures referred to in Clause 5.7 (in each case, a �Dispute�) shall be dealt with under the

procedures set out in UKA�s Dispute Resolution and Disciplinary Procedure.

No wonder why the arguments for the UKA's contract boils down to; TRUST US, TRUST US, don't read the contract, don't worry, be happy, we're honest, HONEST.