2013 Consultation Details
In 2013 we carried out consultation through:
- a series of events held across the nine England Athletics regions
- online submissions – we received more than 1800 submissions
We encouraged people to participate in our consultation whether they believed their views, experiences or ideas were likely to be very similar or very different to those of other clubs.
The Consultation Manager reported on the views expressed in the consultation to the England Athletics National Council and England Athletics Board (Regional Councils were also involved in the consideration and discussion of the findings of the consultation events).
The documents referenced in the Appendix are available for download below.
Meetings & Online Consultation
Before the events we committed to publishing the views expressed at the consultation meetings.
Please see the notes of each of the meetings below:
- North West
- North East
- Yorks & Humberside
- East Midlands
- West Midlands
- South West
- South East (Crawley)
- South East (Oxford)
Findings of online consultation:
When looking at the notes of consultation meetings please note:
- Efforts have been made to record all the views expressed
- People were encouraged to give their views, insights and perspectives even if these differed from those of other people present
- Comments recorded from a meeting/ table/ group often include contradicting views. This is because different people hold/ expressed different views.
- Comments reflect the views of the individual/ club expressing them. They do not necessarily reflect consensus (of the meeting/ table/ group) unless this is stated
- Individuals were able to give multiple comments, particularly in the group/ table environments and these have been recorded. Some individuals made more comments than others
- A number of clubs had multiple representatives at meetings. This was good to see and encouraged, however, this is reflected in any straw polls taken
- A number of comments made and recorded regard perceptions of situations or facts – we believe it is important to report on these as people’s perceptions. Therefore, they have not been removed. However, their inclusion should not be taken as indicating the accuracy of a comment or that it has been substantiated by EA (or the individual who made them)
- Notes giving brief additional information or updates have been added where these may be of benefit. It was not felt practical or appropriate to try to include large amounts of information as the over-riding emphasis in the documents is on recording the views expressed
Formats from different events/ groups vary due to differences in how sessions were delivered (e.g. breaking into groups or all together) and how note taking was carried out at each meeting. It was felt retaining these varied formats would help retain as much of the information recorded as possible.
Supporting Documents for meetings
We made documents available to help people prepare before the events. We encouraged people to read these documents before attending:
The key affiliation issues discussed at each meeting were:
1. Where should it go - What could it pay for?
e.g. Where should affiliation income go and which specific programme areas should be prioritised?
2. What process should be in place for administrating the fee – should we continue to work through club or go direct to the athletes?
e.g. Should we apply a club fee based on its total membership number (via a tiered banding system) or continue to work via the current individual athlete fee?
e.g. Should athletes affiliate direct with the NGB therefore meaning that this separates the athlete payment from the club?
3. Do people believe a competition licence is a good thing?
e.g. If so then how best should it be regulated – should it be policed?
e.g. Or is it a good thing for all athletes in clubs to be members of the NGB?
1. What groups should be part of the governance structure?
Associate members – counties, ECCA, RWA, ERRA, FRA, ESAA
Third party competition providers
2. How could the governance structure be developed?
e.g. How could it work better?
e.g. Are the current regional boundaries the right boundaries?
e.g. Is geography the best way of forming a governance structure