AGB Membership

PLEASE HELP TO FUND ARCHERY INTERCHANGE

Eugen

Member
I take your point entirely. However, neither of the fee options I mentioned above would stop that. There would still be competitive archers.
My underlying point is that for whatever reason(s) AGB is in a mess and needs a radical overhaul if it is to retain and then grow its grassroots members. There will certainly be a rise in fees before long but how palatable that will be depends on how it convinces us it’s money well spent. Or it could just blithely impose the fee increase and callously depend on its effectively closed shop monopoly to see it through. I fear the latter.
I’ve got your point and have the same opinion. Very well expressed!
 

Eugen

Member
Perhaps this is the opportunity for the radical overhaul?
Maybe.... I’m a bit sceptical.... very....

‘’Archery GB has appointed experienced consultants – Counsel Ltd – to support the process and work alongside us to ensure that the project has objectivity, credibility and independence. James Allen, Counsel Ltd founder director and Dr Verity Postlethwaite bring a wealth of experience from across the sporting community.

With Counsel’s support we will conduct in depth consultation with key stakeholders from across the archery community through high quality research, independent, secure surveys and detailed qualitative research with interviews and focus groups with key personnel.’’

as usually.... volunteers will be involved .... but private company (2019) is appointed...
and only ‘key’ , ‘key’....

im sceptical.... from the description I havent seen any details so as for now I don’t see a clear picture.

archery community is not only ‘key’ ....
people , members, athletes, clubs, enthusiasts, etc - they keep community going.... i believe...
 
Last edited:

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Perhaps this is the opportunity for the radical overhaul?
Well, let’s hope so. While the document does say the one of the tasks of the review is to “check and challenge Archery GB’s activities, approach and strategic direction” there is only the slightest nod to a revamp in the phrase “contribute to a successful review and possibly change.” There is no acknowledgement of the fact that there needs to be a root and branch, top to bottom cost saving restructuring or a fundamental rethink of what AGB is actually for - something it has lost sight of imho.
Please God that I am wrong but, come sometime next year, when the results of this review are published expect a verbose diatribe of management/consultant speak intended to bore and befuddle the reader into thinking that a fee increase and business as normal is a great idea.
 
Last edited:

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
'Structure Review Working group' ...... so how many disenchanted AGB members have completed and sent off their 'expression of interest form'?

I was a bit surprised it is restricting ordinary members to about two, and only one working group with such a huge job, which means only two ordinary members representing over 20,000 archers. Mind you, stating that all applicants must have 'leadership traits' means the meetings will probably degrade to shouting matches. And meeting the skills matrix will rule out just about everyone anyway. And it does strike me that there will be more 'professionals' involved than actual members :(
It's a start, but I think it is too big a task for one limited working group. I'm not sure the working group will ..." fairly represents the needs of the membership, now and in the future" with only eight members, although AGB could appoint more. I think they need more ordinary, grass roots members.
The focus groups sound more interesting, but vague.
"This will support the transformation of our sport" is a big statement. There is an assumption that a transformation is a given. Although I generally support AGB, I struggle to see a 'transformation' on the horizon. I expect there will be tweaks around the edges, but I doubt there is the will for a new 'sport of archery'.
 
Last edited:

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
'Structure Review Working group' ...... so how many disenchanted AGB members have completed and sent off their 'expression of interest form'?

I was a bit surprised it is restricting ordinary members to about two, and only one working group with such a huge job, which means only two ordinary members representing over 20,000 archers. Mind you, stating that all applicants must have 'leadership traits' means the meetings will probably degrade to shouting matches. And meeting the skills matrix will rule out just about everyone anyway. And it does strike me that there will be more 'professionals' involved than actual members :(
It's a start, but I think it is too big a task for one limited working group.
The focus groups sound more interesting, but vague.
Well, I have though I strongly suspect, for the reasons you state, it was a complete waste of my time.
I think you’re right - the make up looks like it will be strongly skewed towards those who have a vested interest in the status quo, who may not recognise the problems and therefore be adverse to change. Any one who is part of the higher echelons of AGB’s structure should be disbarred though I notice AGB has two suits on the working group.
 

Eugen

Member
Well, I have though I strongly suspect, for the reasons you state, it was a complete waste of my time.
I think you’re right - the make up looks like it will be strongly skewed towards those who have a vested interest in the status quo, who may not recognise the problems and therefore be adverse to change. Any one who is part of the higher echelons of AGB’s structure should be disbarred though I notice AGB has two suits on the working group.
Not sure that focus groups are interesting. We dont criticise in front of camera and for records. So.... I’m still sceptical.... more then before
and I agree with previous comments. My opinion, what they try to do is apply one-sided look on the situation.... but as before, I believe, ALL people involved in archery (members, non-members, all styles, etc) should have voice .... at the end of the day, all those people keep archery alive, promote it as a sport (and not only one-day fun) and make it better
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
So their leader on this is a person who is currently researchinga nd advising on the legacy of the 2020 olympics.
I dotn thik you need a PhD in hindsight to say what the legacy of a non-event is and if you want to look at what happens after theactual event I question how that can be done without having to suffer a large dose of political interference.
In other words, my view is, as always with these management reviews they are starting from the wromg place and looking in the wrong direction. another analogy is if the only tool you have is a hammer then every job becomes a nail.
I also think we need to ask ourselves should we continue to carry the banner for truly corinthian sport? If AGB wants to have a circus of elite archers the they shuld put their money where their mouth is and underwrite the venture personally. If they are right, they will make a lot of money like Bernie and Max have from motor sport. If they are wrong they wont sink OUR national organisation with their debt.

As for Counsel Ltd giving them credibility- who with? not us, I doubt if the average club archer is remotely interested in what goes on outside their own demesne so that can only be aimed at the apparatchiks who dole out money and brownie points for inclusiveness so back to political inteference.
The govt banned our activity specifically during lockdown for purely political reasons- posh people play tennis, go shooting and do archery whereas the red wall voters go to the gym so we get clobbered to avoid an old Etonian form being labelled elitist.
Not reaching out to a larger market is down to money a lot of the time and AGB applying a £50 tax to the sport doesnt help one bit but I bet you dont see a recommendation of dropping the AGB subs to a fiver to attract more people to join
 

Eugen

Member
Little-else, I agree with you but what I would comment is:
1. I believe we have to continue to carry the banner for archery! I believe that we all as archers of all sorts, members and non-members, clubs and not clubs, we all are what called ‘archery‘. I believe that each of us is an example and is a live ‘advertisement’ of archery. Not AGB, not government, etc, but every and each of us is what called archery and each of us is proud to be an archers and doesn’t matter on what level or style. and Our proudness doesn’t depend on belonging to club, style, regulatory body or managing organisation.
2. AGB, as I personally see it, hast, in reality, not an unified concept of what we are - sport or hobby. As For me - AGB should concentrate on sport first. Sport can be a hobby, obviously, but some people can grow up up to very high level. I will not tell you news if I say that beginners courses havent desired rate of participants who would like and actually do archery as a sport after the course is ended. Content of those courses is out of comments - this content is on a very low level as for me. But I understand that clubs have to earn to exist. From here we clear see a ‘difficulty’ which should be addressed if we want to have archery as a sport.
3. Archery were banned during lockdowns - I don’t think that here was too much politics but yes, agree, money is power and archery isn’t those power. But isn’t it our strength?
4. Sometimes I am very upset that we measure everything in money and markets. Of course, certain level of this thought should be coz we live in environment dictated by money. But, see 3., times are changing, life is changing, and I believe in archery as a sport. I still believe that it can be made popular and successful. Of course we need more people, more serious approach to archery as a sport, more serious trainings, courses, etc....
5. I am convinced that politic should be strictly forbidden for sports and shouldn’t affect it. Agree with you. But I also see a very rigid system that tries to ‘improve’. I’m sceptical with approach what will be used to make this ‘improvement’ BUT this is my personal opinion. I believe that primary information used to decide and make such improvement should come from existing archers of all levels, clubs, all people involved in archery. After analysing this information you can get a lot of points of improvement and then you can see what can be done in short term, long term etc. You can estimate and evaluate predicted result, you can understand what is lacking and what to add. Small example, coaching courses: learners want to have more serious training but what we have is opposite - lowering level. Etc. The same with structure of system.

any system has problems, any system has evolution, the bigger system the more difficult to make changes, improvements. BUT I believe we are enough in number to express freely our opinions, visions, wishes. And this information is priceless! It should be used to make sport of archery better.

im a very optimistic but seeing and reading what is going on I am still sceptical in many things. It is like in market language: we have demand but this demand isn’t satisfied in way and level we want and need. So this gap is still big enough to be significant.
 

Nictrix

Member
Any time I have heard of working groups or consultants being brought in to try and make something better it always goes with what the management want to happen and not with what is advised.
The only reason the working group or consultants are there is so the management can say that they used them and this was the outcome.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
As for Counsel Ltd giving them credibility- who with?
I had a look at Counsel's website and had a hard time figuring out what they actually do. I have a feeling that they are some sort of cross between management consultants and a PR firm, but I really don't know.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
The govt banned our activity specifically during lockdown for purely political reasons- posh people play tennis, go shooting and do archery whereas the red wall voters go to the gym so we get clobbered to avoid an old Etonian form being labelled elitist.
In fairness archery wasn't banned in Scotland after the initial few months. I think that that was down to the Scottish Government doing a wellbeing survey early on and them getting a huge number of replies saying that there was no good reason to ban outdoor non-group sports, with a lot of people citing golf, fishing and surprisingly archery.
 

Eugen

Member
Any time I have heard of working groups or consultants being brought in to try and make something better it always goes with what the management want to happen and not with what is advised.
The only reason the working group or consultants are there is so the management can say that they used them and this was the outcome.
Usually yes, the way to justify decisions they would like to make or put already in place. Shifting responsibility on ‘advisors’ and ‘we were advised so’
 

LittleSkink

Active member
Any time I have heard of working groups or consultants being brought in to try and make something better it always goes with what the management want to happen and not with what is advised.
The only reason the working group or consultants are there is so the management can say that they used them and this was the outcome.
cards on the table, my day job is business change and transformation consultant (and occasional business school academic) and I run a successful business that does that very thing

IMO real change tends to only happen when there is either (i) a crisis, usually a survival crisis (which often kept from the public domain, certainly based on my client list) or (ii) a proper change in leadership (National Trust from a couple of years back is an interesting example). Existential crisis seems less common in this sector compared to corporates

FWIW "Top down" (Kotter esq style) change is broadly considered a pretty out dated way to go about things, but still happens. Senior leadership might "think" they know what to do, and they are the ones paying the consultants to be there, so its not uncommon for (poor?) consultants to agree with senior leadership. Over they years we have walked away from clients who wanted that. We would always advise a "whole systems" approach to change and to unpick a much wider range of perspectives - any time "only key stakeholders" are included in change, you are more likely to get a sub optimal solution
 

Eugen

Member
cards on the table, my day job is business change and transformation consultant (and occasional business school academic) and I run a successful business that does that very thing

IMO real change tends to only happen when there is either (i) a crisis, usually a survival crisis (which often kept from the public domain, certainly based on my client list) or (ii) a proper change in leadership (National Trust from a couple of years back is an interesting example). Existential crisis seems less common in this sector compared to corporates

FWIW "Top down" (Kotter esq style) change is broadly considered a pretty out dated way to go about things, but still happens. Senior leadership might "think" they know what to do, and they are the ones paying the consultants to be there, so its not uncommon for (poor?) consultants to agree with senior leadership. Over they years we have walked away from clients who wanted that. We would always advise a "whole systems" approach to change and to unpick a much wider range of perspectives - any time "only key stakeholders" are included in change, you are more likely to get a sub optimal solution
He isn’t saying that consultants and advisors are useless or results of their job is bad. He just says that job of consultants and advisors is to consult and advise and that’s it. their Job is needed but this is not a change. and you know that often organisation use ‘partly’ what was advised or said, they use what is comfortable. Not all of course.

about ‘key stakeholders’, as I said before, I agree with you. More, the more rigid system the far from optimal will be change if only ‘key’ elements are involved.
 

Eugen

Member
a change isn’t something negative. A change is a time depending variable and because everything lives and develops, changes are done always. Changes made for improvement are always positive, but changes made for just a change .... not sure....
 

Whitehart

Well-known member
When you are looking to grow and be more popular yet only do things for and ask for ideas from your existing members - not even including recent ex members and those that have a vested interest in a thriving archery community you exclude so many ideas from the outside - the Labour Party is very popular with its members but it would seem not so with the rest of the country.
 

LittleSkink

Active member
but without a good reason to change (eg a crisis or new leadership) why would they bother changing at all? Are they in crisis?
 
Top