Compulsory affiliation

[gizzy]

Interesting comments from Waddy in the last archer in regards to compulsory Affiliation what do the NZ archers think of his comments?

[burt666]

Interesting comments from Waddy in the last archer in regards to compulsory Affiliation what do the NZ archers think of his comments?

i can understand where he is coming from, but i still stick with Andrew speech at the AGM. the more we are the better chance we have of getting SPARC money. I still dont understand how you can be a member of an ANZ affiliated Club and not part of the body itself. It is compulsory in France: there is no difference between Club and FFTA memberships.

- "ANZ could have it's own rules": sorry, but i like the principle of playing the same game following the exact same rules as millions of other in the World, let's not outcast ourself....

- "ANZ supports top athletes and SPARC recognises that": yeap they are... His arguments about the whole Olympic things not apply to half the the membership is unvalid as NZOC will determine who goes to Commonwealth Games, recurvers and compounder, for example.

- "sorry but i'm not a stepping stone in your success (or failure)": that's already the way it is anyway, all past Olympic effort have been really self funded, As far is i know... we need to support those willing to go that path. If Olympic-style Archery (which is what ANZ and FITA deal with) is your sport, you'll be happy to see athletes representing your country in world events and at the Games. And sorry but sending athletes to the Olympics is good image to grow the sport, more than a bunch of old men scared of the rain shooting Burton rounds.

- more detail ANZ financial statement: why not? but i dont think we should know which international tournament fee was paid for which archer, that should remain to ANZ discretion.

[TrevorK]

i can understand where he is coming from, but i still stick with Andrew speech at the AGM. the more we are the better chance we have of getting SPARC money. I still dont understand how you can be a member of an ANZ affiliated Club and not part of the body itself. It is compulsory in France: there is no difference between Club and FFTA memberships.

I don't get the archer, but your reply is worrying, here in Tauranga, we are finding it hard to get members in the first place, let alone trying to get them to join ANZ on top. We are trying to get them interested in the comp side of things, but mostly they are happy just to shoot the way they want to. A footnote is that it is compulsory that they are a member of the ECBOPAA, but the fee is only $10 nz a year for an adult.

[Sir Slick]

Waddy actually makes some very, very good points in that article he wrote, some of which I hadn't considered before but which he has used as excellent examples of why affiliations should not be compulsory.

I do support the idea that every person in New Zealand Archery should be affiliated to ANZ, but Waddy is right - the National body could say every person must affiliate, but then how do they enforce that statement or rule, simple answer they can't.

I have actually had an interesting discussion with Waddy recently about how ANZ would best be structured and the best approach for increasing affiliations. Like him or loathe him, Waddy is a very smart guy who gets paid a LOT of money for restructuring places to improve their efficiency, and he does have excellent ideas as to how ANZ could develop and operate more effectively, both politically and sportingly.

One of Waddy's ideas in relation to affiliations would be for the Clubs to affiliate to ANZ on a x 5 basis. To use easy figures if you had 5 members your club would pay a fee of 5 x 5 to affiliate to ANZ, if you had 60 members your club would pay a fee of 60 x 5 to ANZ. This would affiliate every person and the club to ANZ, thus increasing membership (one of ANZ's objectives), and allowing for fees payable to ANZ to be reduced (one of the Archer's objectives) due to the increase in overall membership.

The above is put very simply, so please no comments like what if an archer joins after the fee has been paid. Not going to go into too much detail on here.:)

[Archangel]

I'm highly pissed off with his comments about "standing on the shoulders of other athletes". Where were these mythical other athletes when I was trying to get to the top? Where was all this funding he seems to think was abundant? Certainly wasn't forthcoming from Archery NZ, it came from me and my parents. He can take his stepping stone and ****ing shove it as far as I'm concerned.

Frankly, given the article and his whole spiel at the Nationals, it doesn't surprise me that he's a management consultant; as they say, give a consultant your watch, and they'll tell you the time (and keep the watch). He's found some problems we already knew (and some of them are real problems, he's not off base in all regards) but hasn't bothered supplying any solutions. Thanks, but that's not particularly useful in my book.

I happen to agree that ANZ membership is too expensive. I'll happily pay it personally, it's worth it to me as a highly competitive archer, but it seems to me we're way too far up the expensive side of the demand curve. Not sure what to do though; I voted against the last increase at the AGM, but the majority voted in favour. I suspect there's massive selection bias (the people attending are the ones who are happy to pay) but not quite sure what to do about all that.

I don't have an issue with ANZ doing it's own thing with some rules; particularly I think the junior divisions need attention. As I think Waddy said in an earlier Archer, too many divisions. The 80/20 rule strikes again: 80% of the archers are in 20% of the divisions. And while 90m FITAs for 16-year-olds may work at the Junior Worlds, it doesn't work for archers who are just joining the sport.

Anyway, that's my 10c...

[Sir Slick]

I still dont understand how you can be a member of an ANZ affiliated Club and not part of the body itself

And therein lies your problem. Clubs ARE NOT affiliated to ANZ, simply recognised by them. Individual archers voluntarily affiliate to ANZ. As far as I am aware my club pays no fee to ANZ in order for it to exist.

[The One]

I personally think it's good to see some enthusiastic debate over the topic. While I don't personally agree with most of his views, there are some points in his article which I agree with. These I will itemise:

Things I don't agree with:

1) Membership of all club archers to ANZ makes no sense

They do it in a majority of sports in NZ - surely all of these sports (more successful sports than archery, I might add) aren't doing something that is completely illogical.

2) "having qualified coaches is not essential"

If you want archery to move forward in NZ, it needs to be taught well across the board. I have seen too many archers who have left the sport because they were taught poorly when they started, and others who continued, but had their progress stunted for a number of years. Better coaching in clubs is essential, as we will retain more archers, have a better quality of archers progressing through the ranks, meaning more top archers which can win medals at international events and gain funding for archery.

3) For Indoor and Outdoor Nationals "ANZ just turns up and presents the medals"

This is quite inflammatory in my opinion. ANZ's offer of assistance in organisation and administration of the Nationals was flatly turned down, and now their lack of help and guidance is being quesitoned. For someone who states they are "not 'anti' a national organisation", I am not convinced.

4) Compounders are out of luck with SPARC money, and cannot attend the Olympics.

All archers have benefited from the SPARC admin grants ANZ have received, not just recurvers. Name all the initiatives that only recurvers have gained from? Regarding compounders not being in the Olympics: so? If you wanted to go to the Olympics, choose recurve, not compound.

5) Financials

These were seriously misquoted and taken out of context IMO. The 2007 figures were absolute BS from what I have seen, as was the $90 per archer profit (I have done the calculations).

Things I agree with:

1) "The only way we can get people to join our club is to provide them with something which they will believe will be to their benefit"

The responsibility to attract, retain, and develop archers is both clubs' and ANZ's. However, Just because it is the clubs which are at the 'business end' of the providing chain does not mean that ANZ has no influence. If there are specific points in ANZ's purview where you feel they are not doing enough, for god's sake, suggest something. Simply being unhappy with something is not a solution.

2) "ANZ could have its own rules"

You can already can run FITAs without making it a FITA Star. What exactly is the point? At least we have the option to run one if we want, and a hell of a lot of the archers *do* want them.

3) Much of the judges' equipment is currently self-funded

I would very much like to see this equipment funded. For this, we need money, thus we need to grow our membership base.

4) "To be a top athlete you have to stand on the shoulders of a lot of other athletes"

Yes, to be the best requires help. If it is your view that our top archers should have to be completely self-funded, then archery in NZ will go nowhere. Ever.



I want to write three times this much rebutting the article, but I'm going to restrain myself...

[TrevorK]

can someone post/email me the archers story on this, thanks

[The One]

One of Waddy's ideas in relation to affiliations would be for the Clubs to affiliate to ANZ on a x 5 basis. To use easy figures if you had 5 members your club would pay a fee of 5 x 5 to affiliate to ANZ, if you had 60 members your club would pay a fee of 60 x 5 to ANZ. This would affiliate every person and the club to ANZ, thus increasing membership (one of ANZ's objectives), and allowing for fees payable to ANZ to be reduced (one of the Archer's objectives) due to the increase in overall membership.

Wow, hold up a second. This seems to be the exact method of affiliation I suggested in my original article in the "Archer".

What are we arguing about again?

[gizzy]

can someone post/email me the archers story on this, thanks
I will send it to you Trevor, do you have a fax?

[Archangel]

These were seriously misquoted and taken out of context IMO. The 2007 figures were absolute BS from what I have seen, as was the $90 per archer profit (I have done the calculations).
I agree; I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC the Outdoor Nats last time made a modest profit, but fairly low compared to turnover. $90 per archer for 150-odd archers would be $13500; we certainly didn't make that. $9 per archer might be closer.

Also, as Waddy should know, the tournament making a profit isn't the same as ANZ making a profit exactly; the organisers are generally left to set the entry fees. If it makes a profit, good, if not ANZ picks up the bill (which Waddy was leaping into print about before the Nationals this year; suspiciously short memory there).

And; the Nationals have been running on a false economy for some years now. The target butts are now stuffed and need replacement, which is going to cost $lots; this has not been adequately accounted for in any of the recent tournaments. Hence, they should have been making a profit...

[TrevorK]

I will send it to you Trevor, do you have a fax?
on;y at work, can you scan it as pdf. i'll pm the number

[Sir Slick]

Wow, hold up a second. This seems to be the exact method of affiliation I suggested in my original article in the "Archer".

What are we arguing about again?

I'll have to re-read your article. I don't remember seeing that. I know that Waddy has had this as an "idea" for quite some time amongst others. I know that when Waddy says/does things it tends to polarise quite a few people, but before he is completely crucified here are a few things to consider.
Since becoming President of MAC he has:
-Grown the membership base by approximately 800% (regular shooters)
-Obtained a dedicated range more specific to our needs (albeit windy)
-Obtained a high quality field course
-Obtained significant funding from local body government and other organisations
-Put in place a structure that has allowed Mana to remain financially secure and indeed be running in the black by quite some margin
-Assisted in instituting numerous schemes to attract and retain new archers
-Kept in place programmes which maintain the interest of established archers
_plus many more

I understand a lot of people don't like what he has said (again I reiterate I am pro compulsory affiliations), maybe that is because truth hurts?

[Archangel]

I understand a lot of people don't like what he has said (again I reiterate I am pro compulsory affiliations), maybe that is because truth hurts?
Suggest you try training for years to achieve a goal with zero support from your sport, putting in a huge amount of money and time, then have some old guy who doesn't know the first thing about competitive archery claim that he and others have somehow supported you and were crucial to your success. Suggest you wouldn't be terribly pleased about that either.

[Sir Slick]

Suggest you try training for years to achieve a goal with zero support from your sport, putting in a huge amount of money and time, then have some old guy who doesn't know the first thing about competitive archery claim that he and others have somehow supported you and were crucial to your success. Suggest you wouldn't be terribly pleased about that either.

Suggest I wouldn't give a toss what anyone else thinks. I would personally know how much time and money I have put in and wouldn't care what "some old guy" thought. But that is besides the point.

That is not what Waddy was saying. What Waddy actually acknowledged in his article is that funding for our higher calibre archers has been sought in the past in order to assist archers reach a high level and that this hasn't worked nor been necesarrily available. He has also acknowledged in that article that to get to the top takes a lot of money and time. What he does say is that he doesn't see the point in making affiliations compulsory to support (financially or otherwise) our better archers achieve an elite standard in the future. I don't agree in this regard but everyone is entitled to an opinion, even Waddy.

[TeWero]

Nice to see people care enough to talk about the issues. Might be a good idea to put that effort into affecting change now. I have offered his services free to work though a reorganisation to put up some solutions. This has been suggested to the Board but it seems they have rejected that idea. Maybe if I charged a "watch" it might be more acceptable?

I wrote the article to raise the issues that exist for me and a few others I have talked to. Maybe if people can get over being "highly p.........d off" at me and focus on those issues raised we could have a really affective national body. As long as we keep looking at people not issues we won't.

I look forward to being able to contribute to a solution focussed discussion.;)

[TeWero]

Suggest you try training for years to achieve a goal with zero support from your sport, putting in a huge amount of money and time, then have some old guy who doesn't know the first thing about competitive archery claim that he and others have somehow supported you and were crucial to your success. Suggest you wouldn't be terribly pleased about that either.

Just remember that "old guy" spent his families money on travel, accommodation clothing equipment, food etc. to come to the tournaments as a judge. There have been times where he wondered about the level of commitment from the archers like the time at a major tournament in full view of the public people chose to drink water out of alcohol bottles, just so they could "rark up" another "old guy" who gave years to their sport. So yes I can say I spent my money on making it possible for others to achieve but I did this from choice not compulsion, and that is the point!

[Jay.G]

But isn't that also what archie is trying to say as well?? The money we spent on gear, travelling, accomation, clothing and most of all time on training would easily rival the amount you spent as a judge/organiser/archer but to say we have it easier would easily piss someone who has committed social suicide in order to become highly competitive- myself included. I don't want it to turn into a I give up this in order for this etc sort of argument as that'd just become childish and time wasting. We all know there are kinks and dents in ANZ and it'll take time to change that.
'A child needs to fall first to know how not to walk.'

So I do like how you've put it on the table and let ANZ have a good look at the state its in and hopefully they'll keep on improving but please leave the athelet out of it and say we're getting it plenty easy.
Honestly the support we get for international tournments is a joke, even my school's POLICY on school atheltes representing NZ gives me way more support than ANZ.

[burt666]

And therein lies your problem. Clubs ARE NOT affiliated to ANZ, simply recognised by them. Individual archers voluntarily affiliate to ANZ. As far as I am aware my club pays no fee to ANZ in order for it to exist.

thanks for make that clear!!

[TeWero]

[QUOTE=Jay.G]But isn't that also what archie is trying to say as well?? The money we spent on gear, travelling, accomation, clothing and most of all time on training would easily rival the amount you spent as a judge/organiser/archer but to say we have it easier would easily piss someone who has committed social suicide in order to become highly competitive- myself included. I don't want it to turn into a I give up this in order for this etc sort of argument as that'd just become childish and time wasting. We all know there are kinks and dents in ANZ and it'll take time to change that.
'A child needs to fall first to know how not to walk.'

That's true. Everyone gives some with an expectation of a return (Athletes wanting to go somewhere) others without (judges official;s etc that make it possible), The issue for me is simple, me giving should be voluntary not compulsory.

How do we make it possible for people to live in that environment, make ourselves cost effective, efficient and creative. SPARC gives us beggar all. If we were to restructure the way we do things I am sure we could get more from other sources because I have tested that. How do you think we kept the cost of the Nationals to $120 for the lot? Full on entertainment for $17 bucks a day.

But you are right. We have to stop turning this into a personality thing and agree to look to the future (but I do get touchy when my opinion is given less credibility because of my age).

As Freud said the true sign of insanity is to do the things you have always done and expect a different result.

[The One]

I know that when Waddy says/does things it tends to polarise quite a few people, but before he is completely crucified here are a few things to consider.
Since becoming President of MAC he has:
-Grown the membership base by approximately 800% (regular shooters)
-Obtained a dedicated range more specific to our needs (albeit windy)
-Obtained a high quality field course
-Obtained significant funding from local body government and other organisations
-Put in place a structure that has allowed Mana to remain financially secure and indeed be running in the black by quite some margin
-Assisted in instituting numerous schemes to attract and retain new archers
-Kept in place programmes which maintain the interest of established archers
_plus many more

I should point out that I was not calling Waddy's achievements into disrepute or 'crucifying' him, I know he has done a lot for archery. My points relate merely to the topic at hand, which as many may guess I feel very strongly about. Just because I have different beliefs on this topic, does not mean I don't agree on a number of others.

[The One]

How do we make it possible for people to live in that environment, make ourselves cost effective, efficient and creative. SPARC gives us beggar all. If we were to restructure the way we do things I am sure we could get more from other sources because I have tested that.

How do you suggest we re-structure? Sir Slick mentioned that you agreed with the affiliating clubs on a membership basis. Is this true?

[Archangel]

would easily piss someone who has committed social suicide in order to become highly competitive
Not sure I agree with "social suicide". I haven't known many people who have a major problem with one taking time for training.

As Freud said the true sign of insanity is to do the things you have always done and expect a different result.
Yet people answer the phone the same way every time, and each time get a different result...

[TeWero]

[QUOTE=The One]How do you suggest we re-structure? Sir Slick mentioned that you agreed with the affiliating clubs on a membership basis. Is this true?[/QUOTE

The idea is still working though my brain and I am happy to put it into print when it gets some structure. It kind of goes ANZ takes on the mantle of teh National body, and sets the structure for regional bodies. ANZ looks after national affairs such as SPARC, FITA etc. plus the outdoor and indoor Nationals. Regional bodies (of which I think there could be around 5) look after regional affairs such as major tournaments in their region plus coaching. Clubs belong to a region and the regions belong to ANZ.

Clubs elect people to be a regional rep on the regional committee and each Region puts up one person for ANZ. The Athletes commission, Judges Commission are runs as as "business unit" by people with demonstrated competence and a willingness to do so. They are appointed by ANZ not elected. This could also apply to the Secretary and Treasurer if you want to go that way.

The idea is that we get clear separation between governance and operations and drive the majority of the activities such as tournaments and coaching down to the people who do it anyway, clubs and or regions.

The structure also ensures that each club can have a representative on the governing body that they put up and the whole country can be represented more equitably on the National Body.

It is a little more complex than this but this is the gist of it.

As I said I had volunteered to do the work on an initial structure and possibly a consultation document but so far no takers.

Maybe I have "P...ed" to many people off.

Oh well I guess it just saves me some work :D

[TeWero]

Yet people answer the phone the same way every time, and each time get a different result...[/QUOTE]

Only if you have more than one friend

[Archangel]

Fairly similar to how it was ten or fifteen years ago then?
I don't mean that as a criticism - you probably could make a pretty strong case that archery in NZ has gone downhill since that last restructuring, although I'm not sure I'm convinced that going back to that structure will improve things. Just wondering if I've understood properly?

[TeWero]

Yep it has the feel of back to the future. I think that the issue is more about systems than it is about just the structure.

If I was doing this for that exorbitant amount of money Sir Slick referred to then I would get a few interested people together, lock them in a room and harass them until they came up with a proposed structure and a discussion paper, then I would let that loose on the world for comment.

I never said I had all of the answers, and nor do I now. I do know there are problems and these are getting worse and there is little point in rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic goes down. Lets simply focus some of the energy and passion that seems to exist out there into finding a workable solution that picks up everyone's ideas. What I do well (or so the people who pay me tell me) is make people work through a process to come up with the solutions that will work for them. I NEVER GIVE THEM SOLUTIONS.

So the offer seems to be back on the table now. Bugger I have to learn never to volunteer!

[gizzy]

I have been a strong believer and have been bringing this up for years, who better knows the needs of the archers in their region than the regional associations, Wellington District, EastCoast bay of Plenty, auckland District and South Island district, all these are associations are alive and well except Auckland.
There needs to be fair representation on the board of all the archers from all over the country, this is going back to the old system but maybe it was better than what we have now.
The EastCoast Bay Of Plenty Archery Association ran a tournament last weekend there were 50 archers on the line not all were affiliated to ANZ but all were to the east coast, what does this tell you allot of these archers are social shooters and are happy to shoot club and regional tournaments, all bow types were catered for and the shoot was a Murembeena so distance was not a problem for novice archers, they pay $10 a year to be members and there are outdoor indoor and postal shoots held value for money can the same be said of ANZ.

[TeWero]

[QUOTE=gizzy]I have been a strong believer and have been bringing this up for years, who better knows the needs of the archers in their region than the regional associations, Wellington District, EastCoast bay of Plenty, auckland District and South Island district, all these are associations are alive and well except Auckland.

OK pony up time. People know who I am but I have no idea who most others on this thread are.

Here is the offer (again). I am prepared to work with anyone (or group) who believes that there must be a better way to structure ANZ to get the sort of participation we need to make it grow.

You want in them email me and we can start to put together a discussion document that can go out to clubs etc to comment on before we put a final proposal together. No you don't have to give me your watch if you want to participate, but you do have to agree to stay in their even if your pet idea gets tossed.

If not I guess it dies a death and I get accused of killing it :drool: