BIGGEST DEBATE ON NOPESPORT EVER!!

[gnireenteiro]

I BELIVEVE HONESTLY IT IS CORRECT TO CUT FUNDING FOR BOF TOURS IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY AND USE IT FOR THE OLYMPICS 2012. HOW CANT IT BE RIGHT? IT IS THE ONLY GOOD THING TO DO.

[graeme]

Quite right. You might be trying to make trouble but in fact you are a genius.

When we cut funding to squads, the clubs will rally round their elites and release some of that excess cash lurking in their accounts. The elites will learn to be nice to everyone else. Before long the squad will be funded by the sport and free to use the cash however they like, not following some government diktat. Everyone will be happy and there will be more elite money than ever before.

(I was told this story by a foreign squad manager, who claimed it really happened in his country )

[Nailest]

Sometimes, very occasionally, I think ALL CAPS can actually enhance the posting. I don't think these stories would have quite the same impact if written in lower case.

Like I said, very occasionally.

[marcus_weatherburn]

do u mean as in this topic heading has that effect?

[awk]

Many moons ago, before the days of the Start squad and its funding, a substantial part of the cost of tours was paid for via local grant support, clubs, regions etc. Now the numbers in the Start squad (and I expect on tours) have been slashed because of Sports Council cuts. The cuts have been so savage that there are, for instance, now just 3 second year M16s in Start squad. Bonkers for any number of reasons, not least that you cannot possible predict with that precision.

Far, far better would be to keep the tours and squad at the levels we as a sport want, and find supporting funding through these other routes. Far better also because it reduces the dictatorship of the sports councils.

Over a decade ago, in several debates at Council I argued (forcefully as can be imagined! ) that we should work our utmost to be as self-sufficient as possible. As I see it, we then proceeded to do just the opposite, and it can't have a positive long term effect.

In other words, I agree with Graeme!

Actually, there are two separate issues here: (1) cutting sports council funding, (2) spending it on the Olympics. I can cope with (1), as long as we respond not by cutting activity but by finding alternatives to do what we want to do (which I haven't seen happening, although it might have been). I don't agree with (2) though: I was one of the few that genuinely wished that Paris had won: the Olympics will simply be a massive drain on resources without any real longer term kickback, as other nations have discovered. It would be good to see it have a positive effect on sport in this country, but I sadly believe otherwise.