Which is a better use of UKA Money

I admit these seems a bit happy-clappy to me, and the use of phrases like "thinking outside the box" should be banned outright. However, if the person hired does make athletics more desirable to new investors, as per one of the key responsibilities stated, then the creation of the post should bring in much more than £30k a year into the sport in sponsorship (of events and of individuals). For example, if it attracts a big-name sponsor to replace Reebok for the Cross Challenge, then you've got your 4-6 race series with good prize money right there.

Kick the athletes that are on lottery because they are in the relay teams off the lottery - that'll give you around 50k (sorry terrible English, but i'm in a rush).

Combine that with the above positions salary and budget and you can put on twenty decent races with expenses and prize money.

How many of us can afford to travel and stay in hotels the night before big races every weekend. We cannot! I ran at Liverpool on Saturday and the trip cost me 120 quid. I can't do that every week. Now if UKa were to say to the top 50 guys (and girls) right we're going to pay petrol & put you up in a B&B in these races, you just watch standards improve! Rather than having to go down the cheap option and travelling to a local race, maybe people would be able to travel further afield and we'd get greater depth back in the decent road races.

How many people north of London can be bothered to afford to travel to Chichester for the AAA's 10km road champs in February, stay over in a B&B and then travel back?

But if UKa said, right we'll give you a hotel room, you just get yourself there, you'd get a bunch of guys from say Birmingham, jump in a car together Saturday and come down and use the free accomodation. That happens in three more areas and suddenly you've got a AAA's title that is worth the title.

Instead, you'll get Ian Ladbrookes athletes turn up knowing they'll be in the cash prizes - thus afford the trip - and the AAA's champs race will be rubbish - again!

You don't need finances to put on a succesful road race or even XC. Race organisers are fleecing athletes and joe joggers alike every week. I was involved with the running of a very succesful road race in the 80's and 90's. With intelligent planning and a reasonable amount of local sponsorship were able to put on a race with an extensive and very good quality prize list, and we made a considerable profit. In fact we could have allowed people to enter free and we would have still made a profit. Its a very easy way to make money and to offer incentives to the better athletes. So when UKA has prizes on offer of a £20 bournesports voucher on offer for 6th place like last Saturday in what was basically a national championship is unbelievable. Ok nobody is doing it for the money but has naybody taken a glance at train prices these days.

One xample of the money making behind this I ahve seen is the Oxford grand oprix races. 10k road race held on a disused airfield, flat good quality road service, no police fees, ample parking. Entry fee of £8, for which you get nothing but the race, average 400 entries, bingo £3200 in just over 2 hours work.

Its easy to organise races and have good incentives, unfortunately too many people are looking to sfurther their own ends rather than teh athletes.

Tim W - UKa don't really need any more sponsorship money - their turnover is currently 16.3 million a year. What they need to do is spend their current income better. Thus far we've had 8 years of declining performances - one look at this sort of jon-creation nonsense shows why this is the case. Bear in mind this is the same organisation, which, when faced with hiring a couple of food nutritionalists, sent them to Kenya to find out what the Kenyans eat! This just shows that they have no real grasp of money, since they are spending someone else's and not their own.

I quite agree. Brighton 10km, used to be a premier fixture. Once had 31 guys under 30mins on a shitty day.

It must be 10 quid plus to enter. 3,000 entries. No road closure fee's. Reebok paid for championchip and provided a few really bad prizes - free shoes etc. Brighton and Hove AC walked off with almost 30 grand!

I heard of a guy at the local runnign club trying to put on a flat and fast five miler in Brighton a week before the six stages. His plan was to invite all the clubs in the south and put a grand and a half up for team prizes. His thoughts were that if he could get four teams (M & W) wanting to have a decent burn out before the relays, then he'd get 16 decent runners - enough exposure for more people to come back the following year.

The club said no on grounds that it would eat far too much into profit - very sad!!

"What do you think would do more to raise standards in UK distance running "

I believe we have plenty of distance running talent, despite what the critics say.

One of the reasons why our athletes are so much slower than the Africans is because the important races on the track tend to be tactical affairs and are thus run much slower than they potentially could be.

With repeated tactical racing we all get gradually slower.

Is pace making the answer? Perhaps, even though many observers are against pace making, I don't see any alternative, but for our best runners to go along with this, if they want fast races. After all, fast times are really what get people noticed.

There is a lot of nonsense written on here, like the turnover bit above. The writer knows very well how much of that UKA can actually control but uses the figures to make a stronger case. If he or she stuck to the facts then I might be more inclined to agree with them.

Relays - it is not a UKA decision to put relay runners on to lottery funding, it is UK Sport's. Kick them off and UKA would not have a penny more, and no more endurance athletes would be on the programme. UK Sport is there to finance potential medal winners and the relays look a better bet than most distance runners do at the moment.

Sending UK athletes up and down the country to race each other will not make a scrap of difference to distance running in the UK. Increasing prize money to UK athletes will make a difference by allowing them to run less crap races and if they can make a living it might attract more athletes in to the sport (or stop athletes leaving).

Sir, tell me where the nonsense is in the 'turnover bit'? I have used the UKa website and accounts for information; you therefore, ought to tell me where this so-called 'nonsense' is. Why can UKa not use their money for their own devices? Please enlighten us, and at the same time, tell us how their lack of control over their own finances makes them a poorer performing organisation? Am looking forward to it, along with many others I suspect.... Finally, do tell us "those facts with which you are inclined to agree", whatever that means.

The fact is, that UKa are a failing organisation. Please defend them if you are willing. And as you do so, consider the following: if they were a public limited company with shares available for purchase, would you back them by committing your money to them?

Looking forward to your response. Best regards.

A significant percentage (maybe 75?) of income is ringfenced and can only be used for specific purposes e.g. Lottery funding and sponsorship that is linked to TV events - so UKA does not and cannot control its use. You know that, but choose to ignore it - why ? Where does lack of control come in to it ?

If you have bothered to look at the accounts then you will be totally aware of what can and cant be done with the income but you undermine your case by making exagerated claims that you cannot support.

UKA are far from perfect but the alternative being suggested i.e. management from bottom upward would be even worse. Just take a decent look at the AAA's selection process for the CG - an absolute joke.

I agree that UKA needs to clear out some dead wood and I would back any attempt to do that but dont put the blazers in charge of the asylum.

Sir - couple of things. First of all, writing "you know that" is undermining your argument: you have no idea what I know and what I don't. Second of all, commencing with "maybe 75%" is pretty weak ground also, but I figure you know that.....!

Let's deal with what we do know. Turnover is 18.5 million pounds - this has been consistently increasing over the last three years. So lack of funds is not the problem in my opinion. What about this ring-fencing issue? Well, you will know from your reading of the accounts - you have read them? - that there is no mention of what is actually ringfenced and what is not. This is disappointing. However, the problem remains: the organisation is failing despite considerable resources, and were the ring-fencing of funds the actual problem, surely those providing them would like to see that barrier removed rather than continue with the current malaise?

Finally, AAAs and a bottom up approach. Could not agree more - professionals not amateurs should be running the sport. However, what we have just now is "professionals" who are underperforming. In any other walk of life they would be out the door. Sweeping change is required, yet I see few experts in change management who can accomplish this. And the latest job on offer that started this debate - creative media officer - should just read as the following: Spin Doctor. Surely we should ask Alistair Campbell to apply after his terrific job for the Lions?!

think i have to agree on this one - in any other industry a chief exec on 70K plus a yr who had overseen a decline in standards as witnessed in UK athletics under Moorcroft's leadership would have been removed well before his current 8 years in charge.

Doesn't the first respondent pretty much cover off the specifics on this particular new UKA job, ie if the new job holder produces benefit to the sport greaterthan his/her salary and on costs the job has been worth having. It's actually not a large salary for what the job requires - a point which applies to the vast majority of UKA salaried position (which might lead into some debate about the effectiveness of some of those in these jobs...)

I don't see how looking in isolation at the UKA annual turnover can indicate whether or not it could usefully use more money. Leave aside soccre as a worldunto itselfCompared to the likes of ECB, RFU, RFL, LTA it's small beer and there's probably an argument that if athletics wants to regain a profile closer to that of these sports (and by most criteria it has declined against them in recent years)then it needs to have financial clout comparable to them. Other posters on this thread have suggested various options that might be practicable if UKA had spare cash to prioritise such ideas.

The point that UK Sport 'selects' relay runners for Lottery funding is just plain wrong - Dave Collins endorses them on the WCPP based on the recommendation of the Senior Performance Manager for that event group. Dave Collins has to select athletes who he judges are most likely to deliver what he is accountable to deliver - World Level Medallists and Top 8 placers.

Dave Collins is on a ridiculous salary for somebody with limited athletics experience and poor knowledge of teh sport, you have to be involved with it to see how it works. The belife taht people at the grass roots level can be dictated to is ridiculous, they are volunteers who get nothing back but enjoyment... those preaching are on huge salaries and do not have teh good of the sport at heart.

Moorcroft is not seen in the public eye enough, in my opinion he is not ruthless enough and is too mild mannered for such a difficult job.

When we were successful, particularly in the 70's in the distances we had nowhere near the beauracracy we have now. It seems like there is some kind of 'inner circle' with UKA, defnitely a case of jobs for the boys...

How did Barden get the 'co ordinator of Endurance' job, whats he going to co ordinate? How to get back to your kit when you drop out? Surely you want some kind of aspirational figure in this position...

I have to say that the above job looks like a pretty difficult position to me. A hell of a lot of resonsibility and pretty difficult tasks to meet considering a fairly modest salary.

I for one would not fancy this job, athletics unfortuantely is not very high on the public's priorities as regards sports, I don't think this is because of UKA (I can't remember the last time a distance race was shown in full on TV, maybe this is more to do with Fast Track I'm not sure). We have had numerous people come on here in the last 6 months including some who have been employed by UKA in some capacity and explained how difficult nay impossible their positions are. Ringfencing seems like one of the biggest problems as regards funding but we also have to accept that we just do not have the athletes.

At the end of the day it comes down to poor performances, the administartion can only do so much as regards funding, tarining camps, race opportunities, nutrition, testing etc... they can't babysit the athletes, it has to be a two way situation. The athletes have to show results or at least progress. The new funsing system seems to be going some way towards this, persoanlly I'd like to see it go further... If we were winning countless medals and achieveing great things there would be no situation where those in charge would be questioned but like any football manager says you have to give people time to turn things around. Some of the measures look promising, St Marys, Endurance Coordinators, London Marathon funding etc... maybe in 5 years or 10 years we will start to see these scehmes bearing fruit.

To UKA No Way - I don't know if you have read the Dave Collins material published recently in detail on uka.net or seen him 'live'. If so then there is I think a strong case that he has enough knowledge of the sport to do what a Performance Director is supposed to do, bearing in mind what the Performance Team he manages and the other 'experts' involved bring to the table in terms of highly detailed athletic-specific knowledge. His CV covers a load of relevant bases - + two strong champions of his appointment were Steve Backley and Jonathan Edwards, both of whom should have rare insight into managing/developing elite T+F performance. Many would say that his predecessor as PD had great knowledge of athletics as an elite coach but brought little of the oomph that a good PD should provide.

The job was advertised, he must have applied, and he got the job. I believe that he is taking on the non-olympic event co-ordination that was previously part of the Technical Directors job. It doesnt need anybody inspirational to organise selection meetings, send out meeting notes, go to championships ahead of the team to make certain the arrangements are in place, attend meetings about race walking etc etc

A Good runner but somebody who maybe didn't get the best out of himself, has knowledge of travelling to major events right through the age groups I guess.

Is Alan Storey technical director? What is Zara Hyde's position? Is she head of Endurance? and Mark Rowland?

Zara Hyde Peters is Director of Development - not really certain what that means or does.

Storey was Technical Director, but there isnt one any more, he is now Senior Performance Manager. Another nonsense title, but I believe that he is supposed to work with the funded athletes and their coaches - anyway that is what I understood from Collins road show. So he doesnt coach.

Mark Rowland is Senior Performance Coach. He does coach, and isnt supposed to do much more.

Bryan Smith is or was Head of Endurance, but I dont think that job exists much longer. More of a Committee role, so it depends on the new structure with hubs, New England etc - who knows how that is all supposed to work. As far as I can see it is being made up as we go along.