Angling not in top 20 sports

[Brian Crawford]

Sport England today unveiled radical changes to the way sport is funded in an attempt to recreate the success enjoyed by England at the Rugby World Cup.

The organisation, which distributes National Lottery cash, is cutting back financial support of minor sports to concentrate on major sports. They have set up a lottery fund of £130 million for the top 20 sports in Britain - and have vowed to put in place measures to prevent the money disappearing down a black hole. The sports to be given priority in order to increase participation are split into two sections. There are 10 Sport England priority sports: badminton, cricket, football, golf, hockey, netball, rugby union, rugby league, squash and tennis. 10 UK Sport priorities: athletics, canoeing, cycling, equestrian, gymnastics, judo, rowing, trithlon, sailing and swimming.

These sports will receive 80% of funding distributed by Sports England.

 

So, now we know where we stand. When was the last time we had a world title in any of these sports. Perhaps angling has been too successful winning all those team and individual gold medals. Pehaps we have been too successful in being the most participation sport apart from sex.

 

I wonder what the NAA response to this might be?

Or did they already know? Well done guys.

 

Anyone for hockey?

 

Brian

[Newt]

Any idea where they got their 'popularity' numbers?

 

Is badminton really that popular?

[JW]

I think the problem is probably that most people don't see Angling as a "sport" preferring to label it a "pastime".

[Bill Eborn]

Brian Crawford:

When was the last time we had a world title in any of these sports

Isn't that why they have concentrated their resources in these areas. The sports which have prestigious international competitions, world cup, olympics, test matches etc?

[Cranfield]

Fishing, along with Hunting and Shooting, are "sports".

The activities in that list, are "games".

[phil hackett]

Sport England class Angling as a Contentious sport as it does with boxing and other fighting contact sports, hence why its not listed by them. The SAA Brian is aware of this and has raised the fact with the sports Minister and Martin Salter.

 

Letter from individual anglers complaining to both wouldn't go a miss though!

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Brian,

 

So if Phil is right, and Sport England now regard fishing as a "contentious" sport, does that mean the plans to fund UK angling via this channel are well and truely blighted??

 

The word "contentious" according to the Oxford dictionary means "quarrelsome". So Sport England it seems have first hand experience of UK angling representatives then? Or do they get their information from the angling press or "no-bodies" comments made on the internet?? The main point surely has to be though, a valuable source of funding via Sport England is going to be denied UK angling.

 

All the more reason then to seek self funding for our own sport? Self funding that will entail UK angling to hold its head high and become powerful. No more waiting in line with the begging bowl. Of course, self funding would bring with it an answerability of the democratic sort. But who cares so long as such funding comes forth.

 

Iv'e heard all the arguments made concerning Sport England funding or even some sort of Government funding possibly coming provided UK angling holds its cap out as a unified body. Thats the reason why the NAA was born and why David Bird banged on about "unity, unity , unity. Not of course that David was wrong, because no money would have been made available unless angling got its act together on the united front. No one, wants to deal with factions or fragmentations within the one sport. The trouble is as far as I am concerned, angling is looking towards the wrong people for its funding instead of going head long towards its own people. And I for one, don't like the idea of any one organisation be it government or appointed quango giving angling "conditions" or "criteria" it has to meet before hand outs are given.

 

Another thing that gives me great disquiet, is the fact that anglings leaders ( I don't agree with that label by the way but it will surfice for now) are perfectly happy about going for funding in the direction of government or Sport England. The trouble with this direction is anything given will be a handout. Thats fine in the short term. But will such funding be perminent? I doubt it. And in any case, one is always under the influences of some sort of regime once you accept their handouts. Far better is the self funding route. Done professionally and effectively, self funding provides sustainable funding, and leaves UK angling in a far stronger position to defend its membership interests.

 

Every other sport has its own organisation where its individual members stump up yearly subs to belong to it. Why not angling?? Any reasons why not aside from the normal defeatist ones?

 

And if we were self funded, we could have professionals looking after our interests. In turn, they could then beat on the doors of Sport England to announce we "ARE" united, we "ARE" self funded, so if theres any extra money available, lets have some!!

 

But if this money didn't come forth, much the same as it's not going to do anyway, at least we could be standing on our own financial laurels instead of bumping around the financial pin ball machine hoping that someone, anyone, is going to fund our sport.

 

Its high time that angling stepped towards another direction concerning funding. Self funding "IS" the only way. And if you don't believe me, ask SAA, NAA or who ever else in NAA like NAFAC for instance, just how far down the road we have got in "REAL" terms at getting angling funded outside of anything near to the idea of self funding.

 

Many involved in NAA will slake my opinions. I dont understand that. Nothing I say is personal. I just want the very best for angling that angling itself can provide for "itself".

 

DIY funding means taking the idea to our nations angling majority in a serious business like manner. Involving the winding up an angling PR machine that I "KNOW" angling is easily capable of doing to reach the hearts and minds of our nations anglers.

 

Undoubtedly, we are getting left behind in the "recognised" stakes within the sporting world.

 

We have some extremely capable individuals working for angling. Its high time they had the proper resources made available to do the job within a real world where proper funding really counts.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

Lee, have to agree.

 

Anglers are prepared to spend big time. It is a very many million pound a year industry.

 

There are numerous angling millionaires, proving that 'angling' can aquire money.

 

But we, as run of the mill anglers, are not prepared to fund 'angling', only ourselves directly.

 

We are prepared to pay through the nose, throw hundreds of pounds into the water as feed. We spend a fortune on the latest don't need fashion accessory. But we object to a fraction of oour money going for the common good of anglers / angling.

 

'Angling' has to change it's attitudes. We must fund ourselves, only then will we be taken seriously. The Countryside Allience, so I understand, has proven that angling's manufacturers are prepared to put their hands into their pockets. Money from 'angling', money that should have gone to 'angling' more generally has gone elsewhere. Your money, my money.

 

Once we have a million we can then ask others, such as Sport England, to match it. But why should they help us if we are not prepared to help ourselves?

 

The NAA, the obvious choice, should surely, by now, have appointed professional fund raisers.

[JW]

Another big problem is judging just HOW popular angling is in Britain. This is where clubs (no matter how small or casual) have a big influence. The more structure you can show the easier it is to get funding. How many anglers around the country are not in some sort of club or society? I would guess the majority....

[Brian Crawford]

I support comments made by Phil, Peter and Lee and others about the need for anglers to fund themselves. This issue has been raised many times. In the 1970' and 1980's I criticised the National Anglers Council, which was formed to do the job in the 1960's, that the NAA was formed to do in the 1990's. The NAC claimed also to represent all anglers. However, it was the only body the Government would officially talk to and which received a grant. It paid a large slice of this grant to the NFA, game anglers and sea anglers who in turn paid back a large slice of this to the NAC in order to keep their block votes to ensure no other organisation had a voice in important decisions.

 

At the time, the NAC and NFA had no individual membership. I publically critisised this as how could they claim to be representative of all anglers. However, this was at a cost of my part-time employment with the NAC as Education Development Officer for the Eastern Region in 1984. It may be a coincidence that following this both the NAC and NFA allowed individual membership - but with no voting rights.

The NAC died when its funding was reduced. The NAA has taken its place - nothing has changed. All the thousands of anglers not a member of the few clubs and associations affiliated to the NFA or other NAA bodies do not get a say in how they are "represented"

 

The official line is that as they are not a member of an affiliated body, they are not entitled to a vote in how their sport is organised.

 

This is my key point. If the sport were funded correctly, any angler would be able to have his/her view expressed and considered by the managers of angling and to have the option to vote on all issues concerning their sport - if they so wish.

 

The bottom line is how to get such funding - not from any government I believe.

 

The only way forward is for every angler to have to pay at least £5.00 per year for membership of a new Nationaly organised group.

 

The £5.00 could be charged in a similar way to the EA licence and available from post offices but would need an amendment to the current Fishing Acts.

 

Possibly a pipe dream but if it came off has the potential to raise up to £10 million per year.

 

We could afford to fund professionals for management, education, publicity, training, research and overall representation and unification of our sport.

 

It will never happen of course but I do believe in a democratic world, even in angling, I am allowed my opinion and right to constructively criticise and suggest solutions even if a bit far-fetched.

 

Brian