I know nothing more about AGB’s finances than the next person and what I do know comes from the published accounts but even in ignorance I would consider a significant drop in membership (20k plus?) a potential crisis for AGB’s finances. Could that alone have prompted this strategic review or are there other underlying reasons? Members dissatisfaction? Fear the Olympic performance targets might not be reached threatening a loss of funding?They may think so, or see a crisis looming. I guess it comes down to how you define crisis. One person's crisis is another person's burnt toast. The drop in membership may be critical to AGB.
From what you say it doesn’t look good either way.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
It's been asked and I don't think there is an answer. Many here think £50 is too much as it is just insurance for them. I shoot competitively and I shoot four plus times a week, so for me £50 is really peanuts. Which is why many advocate a competitive fee and a non competitive fee. The difficulty is setting these levels. Perhaps £35/£85 would be realistic at a complete guess? However, I could see this putting off the casual competitive archer, or how, indeed, do you classify a competitive archer? National, county or club?At what level of membership fee (bearing in mind we all pay club fees as well) do existing and potential new members say it’s simply not worth it? £50? £75? £100?
For me even the £50 is too much, I can get full archery insurance including public liability for less than £20, so the rest of the fee seems excessive, and why are the other Archery associations not involved.At what level of membership fee (bearing in mind we all pay club fees as well) do existing and potential new members say it’s simply not worth it? £50? £75? £100?
Honestly I have no idea about funding etc but I see that, in archery particular, volunteering is dominating.... kinda charity I supposea quick google of "how are sports funded in UK" revealed a whole bunch of different stuff, different organisations, different pots of money. Who know that sector was such a mess - don't suppose we have anyone here who knows about this space?
Mostly I was expecting to see some "typical"models of funding / support / strategy like you see in charities sector. No such luck
A private limited company with total assets of £1,635,395 and debts of £1,084,403 at the end of 2020, so a total of £586,042 of assets, the majority of which is cash in the bank. How many other sporting activities are run by limited companies?Archery GB is NOT a charity, it is registered as a company, its accounts are online if you are interested . . .
GRAND NATIONAL ARCHERY SOCIETY(THE) - Overview (free company information from Companies House)
It's probably sensible for it to be a limited company as it will limit the liabilities of the board and members in the event of any financial mishaps.A private limited company with total assets of £1,635,395 and debts of £1,084,403 at the end of 2020, so a total of £586,042 of assets, the majority of which is cash in the bank. How many other sporting activities are run by limited companies?
It is Limited by GuaranteeIt's probably sensible for it to be a limited company as it will limit the liabilities of the board and members in the event of any financial mishaps.
I will argue the “worth it” piece because it is nonsense and driven by insane theories like shareholder value. BUT now you have to pay that much to keep a decent exec. It’s all artificial value (in my opinion). It is all linked to the 90s ethos that greed is good.Exec pay in corporates is usually easier to justify as its usually about added value, if a role impacts profit (or brand or reputation) sufficiently then they are worth it