Angling not in top 20 sports

[Steve Burke]

I gather that Sport England are concentrating purely on Olympic sports and as angling isn't one we don't stand a chance......

 

Additionally, I suspect they want to be seen to be policitally correct. Imagine the outcry and propaganda victory for the antis if we were subsided! This is one of the reasons I agree with other posters in advocating self-funding. But how we achieve this I don't know.

[Peter Waller]

Brian speaks with much wisdom. Would love to have read his last posting, but written by a member of the NFA or NAA.

 

So, Steve, the anti's would not be impressed if we were to be subsidised? Ummmmmm. Many active anti's are only able to operate full time because they are subsidised, by benefits paid by you and I! Not a very fair or just world

[Brian Crawford]

Steve Burke:

I gather that Sport England are concentrating purely on Olympic sports and as angling isn't one we don't stand a chance......

 

Additionally, I suspect they want to be seen to be policitally correct. Imagine the outcry and propaganda victory for the antis if we were subsided! This is one of the reasons I agree with other posters in advocating self-funding. But how we achieve this I don't know.

Steve, Shooting is an olympic sport but also not in the top 20, also hunting indirectly in the form of dressage and show jumping.

 

Brian

[Nugg]

Some interesting points made regarding a self funding organization, but in reality could it not be related to something like a Trades Union, where some join, some don't, but all get the benifit and knowing how tight fisted Anglers are most would not bother.

I know this has been mentioned before and I agree that some kind of compulsory payment might be taken along with the licence fee. If it were possible then it would be expensive to administer, would it not?

[phil hackett]

Lee

Whilst I agree with you that sustainable long-term funding should come from within, Nugg hits the reason right on the head. Anglers are to bloody tight and disinterested.

 

Yes there is an argument that it has to sell, promoted itself better to angler, even legislate for a tariff if needs be. But that costs money, and if you don’t have big bucks to kickstart the process it isn’t going to happen, or what you get is a half done job that’s under funded from the start and playing catch up all the time.

 

The only way that sort of money can be raised initially, is by some sort grant funding/handout.And the only big bucks available out there comes from the lottery and it funding arms.

 

Which raises a plethora of unanswered questions by Govt.

1) Why is angling listed by Sp. Eng. as contentious sport, because that view is not shared by Govt.? It does have an angling Charter after all and we should be making it and its agencies accountable to that.

2) Who did Sp. Eng. consult on 80% of its funding going only to the top 20 (Olympic) sports? Did it ask the stakeholders, those who by the bloody tickets about it? Answer No!

3) Why has this Govt. eroded the principle of the Nt. Lottery and started using it as an alternative source funding for activities it and local councils did and should fund? And they have, there is no doubt about that!

4) As evidence of the above I’m involved through something else I do in an area that’s covered by the Children’s Fund (Lottery money), the administrators of that funding locally are the local Council. It won’t surprise you to know that much of the funding is going into areas that are council run and traditionally funded by them. The way they get around the rules is by converting them into an arms length dept., Trust, etc. This practice is now widespread Nationally, and across all funding arm spheres.

5) The Nt. Lottery is IMO now one of the greatest con tricks of this new centaury perpetrated on working people. 80%, there or there about of all ticket sales are bought buy low-income people (Traditionally what was called the working class) and it is rapidly those people who are benefiting the least from this source of funding.

6) There reasons for this are complex, but in essence, the higher income sector is more skilled at presenting their case for funding on the application forms. Yet again those who pay the most are getting the least!

7) Angling in its broadest terms is a low socio economic sport, meaning that the majority of its participants are from the lower income bracket and are therfore more likelt to play the lottery.

 

Yes Lee, in an ideal world it would be self-funding but in the real world it is not, therefore it must in the short-term look for grant handouts.

And my personal view is that, it should be getting funding from NT. Lottery for the reasons given in 5., 6. & 7. Not to do so I believe, only aids the perpetuation of the con trick of, paying the most and getting the least.

Angling needs to wise up and play the grant handout game as others who in my opinion do, and are less entitled to it than US.

Originally posted by trent.barbeler:

[QB] Dear Brian,

[Colin Brett]

I've got my Fiver, where do I send it??

Colin

[Leon Roskilly]

http://www.sport.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2189546

 

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,1...1087515,00.html

 

http://www.sportengland.org/press_releases...ces_funding.htm

 

TL - leon

[Brian Crawford]

Leon, thank you for those site references. I see that angling is actually mentioned in the small print.

 

Phil, I agree with your comments about lottery handouts. Perhaps we need to encourage more people who fall into lottery assisted groups into angling!!!!

 

Brian

 

[ 20. November 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Brian Crawford ]

[Brian Crawford]

Concerning a new national organisation for angling. On reflection, I believe we already have such an animal. All anglers (Coarse and Game) pay for a national Rod licence, although this actually licences the angler to fish with up to two rods in England and Wales. Part of this licence fee actually goes to regional fishery consultative organisations in the form of grant aid from the EA out of licence fee income and other government grants. This income for consultatives is augmented by members of the consultative paying an annual subscription. Membership of consultatives is very (usually) broad based on river catchments, and more representative of local angling interests than the NFA is or ever was. If the rod licence, due to increase to £23 next year, was increased to £30 instead and the extra income given to consultatives via their national body, The National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives (NAFAC), I feel we would then be in a position to have a real representative national organisation supported by reasonable funding. A body which would then represent all coarse and game anglers and angling in England and Wales (and Scotland also if they accepted a rod licence), and one which would have the clout to take on the battle for lottery handouts.

 

The basic framework is there. I have been a member of three different consultatives so understand their potential to expand, represent and in the accepted meaning, govern.

 

Brian

 

[ 20. November 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Brian Crawford ]

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Chaps,

 

Everyone makes good points here.

 

Phil mentions the need to actually "have" money first in order to kick start any effective PR campaign aimed at attracting anglers to the idea of joining a national body representative of UK anglers. Phil, is that brief synopsis of your words about right?

 

I have some concerns and reservations concerning that.

 

Now let’s say the NAA for example was given a grant for angling. Let’s further say this amount was for £100,000. All well and good seemingly. But would this grant come with no restrictions being placed on how the NAA could spend the money and where, or would there be certain provisos? £100,000 is a lot of money and grants normally come accompanied with some sort of condition attached to them. Then there would be the question of "how" this money would be allocated within the NAA. We have been told already that there is little in the way of officer structure within the NAA so is, or would, there be a treasury structure created within the NAA to deal with grant allocation? Gets rather complicated within the present structure doesn’t it if one starts to think about it. The Salmon and Trout, NFA and Sea Anglers are the governing body within the NAA. Due to lack of available funds, the rest are there at the behest of the big three. Yes I know, according to what we are told, there is equality within the NAA six. But I'd bet a gold clock that once large chunks of money get channelled into the NAA via a granting system, the power see-saw might just get a tad top heavy. This is just one scenario where the present NAA set up would start to show cracks in my opinion.

 

Also, and this is very important, why on earth would the NAA or anyone else,want to spend newly available funds on a PR campaign intended to kick start self funding for angling. If anyone truly believes this money "would" get channelled into such a thing, they are rather naive. Plus the fact, and more about this later, we simply don’t need great amounts of money in order to get the self funding idea into the hearts and minds of anglers. Just creative thinking that’s all. The same basic creative thinking that one would expect to find in any thriving business large or small.

 

Then there is the aspect that most posters mentioned. The one about most anglers being willing to stump up hundreds if not thousands of pounds for tackle items, but hardly anything in real terms for anything that looks after their fishing interests. "Apathy", as it is generally known in the angling political world.

 

Let me tell you all this, it "IS" possible to sell a "good" product to almost anyone. The trick is, the sales pitch just has to be a good one and more importantly, is an "HONEST" pitch.

 

Presently, all of the bodies that make up the NAA have dreadfully poor track records in their own PR attempts aimed at gaining individual members. Following on from that, one might easily expect that any group attempt between the six in the form of the NAA would be equally as poor. NAA general PR is certainly poor in my opinion already. Perhaps fairly described as almost none existent to the angling majority?

 

What angling needs to be able to kick start a PR campaign aimed at self funding is a volunteer team plucked from within the angling community itself that "ARE" vastly experienced in the industrial world of hard sell. Selling campaigns that move people to buy their wares or ideas. Leave the actual politicking to most that are already there. They are very good at that. But these people are angling politico's NOT PR people.

 

We need a separate team or "think tank" that can come up with ideas on how to push such a self funding campaign forward.

 

Phil, and many like him, truly believes anglers won't stump up for their own sport. I don’t agree with that for a second. I simply say, "TRY HARDER". Look for new directions or paths not walked down before. Getting the message across doesn't have to cost a lot of money either.

 

But remember this;

 

Constantly finding reasons "NOT" to be doing something will serve just one purpose. It will continue to leave our great sport behind whilst all others surge forward around us. Its happening now. And I truly believe that if anglings rank and file actually "knew" their sport was not in the UK's top twenty frame they would dig a bit deeper to get its true recognition if a fiver per year was all that was needed. Thing is though, someone has to get the message out so that they actually “do” know what’s going off in the first place. PR again.

 

True effectiveness, in anything, all comes down to effective PR in the end. True effectiveness on the angling front will only come about via a national association open to all. True effectiveness on the angling front will also only come about if we, as a collective group, are self funded.

 

Brian has a lot of experience. He is truly one of anglings democratic "statesmen" that have seen more than most. It is his experience and men just like him what angling needs now on it’s PR front. They have seen the previous mistakes made and watched the previous pitfalls grow. Harness their experience with newer blood skilled in hard sell PR, then you might all start to see a change in the angling majority’s attitude to promoting what they love the most. Not items of tackle as most perhaps believe, but the important bit. THEIR FISHING. THEIR SPORT.

 

One thing remains dead certain though. If we don’t actually try to reach our angling majority, actually try to self fund ourselves, UK angling as a sport or pastime, will never realise its true potential.

 

And us with easily over 3 million participants surely means its got to be worth the trying effort.

 

Anything less has got to be like going fishing with Wellington boots on the wrong feet backwards.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.