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.
AGB Membership
- Thread starter Whitehart
- Start date
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?
Is it usual for AGB to react this quickly to a crisis?
For my sins, I was today reading AGB’s Strategic Plan 2021-26 which I understand was published after the last AGM. It’s a document which runs to twenty-odd pages and was obviously not just dashed off in a hurry. Much thought and preparation went into it.
In this thread Little Skink wrote “...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)...”. So one could be forgiven for thinking there is something serious going on at the heart of AGB that it’s senior management have known about for some time and the Strategic Plan and Strategic Review are the tools it’s employing to try to put things right.
So here’s the dilemma. Can AGB afford to carry on (or even survive) in its present form with membership (rumoured to be) in the twenty thousands - from a peak of forty thousand plus a few years ago- and keep the membership fee at £47?
At the time it is trying to think of ways to attract more people into the sport can it risk raising the membership fee? Might that churn as many existing members out as new members come in?
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?
I think many see it as a tax as it’s the only contact they have with AGB.
From what you say it doesn’t look good either way.
Last edited:
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?We've been here so many times before but this is the first time I have seen the light of a possible change. But this is just a review. It's not a notification of change.
Last edited:
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.
In other sports with Olympic associations how many levy a fee on their membership to support the professional side of the sport.
LittleSkink
Active member
a 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
Mostly I was expecting to see some "typical"models of funding / support / strategy like you see in charities sector. No such luck
Honestly I have no idea about funding etc but I see that, in archery particular, volunteering is dominating.... kinda charity I suppose
LittleSkink
Active member
Charities are highly regulated in the UK, they must fulfil their Charitable Objects. How they operate, how they can raise and use money are all well defined. If you breach these things the Charity Commission can shut you down
Volunteering is (probably) different to charity, eg I "volunteer" in terms of helping out with a charity, I also "volunteer" in terms of being on a committee that runs a club that isnt a charity
Searching for "Archery" doesn't seem to find Archery GB (but I dont have time right now to dig deeper)
Search the register of charities
Volunteering is (probably) different to charity, eg I "volunteer" in terms of helping out with a charity, I also "volunteer" in terms of being on a committee that runs a club that isnt a charity
Searching for "Archery" doesn't seem to find Archery GB (but I dont have time right now to dig deeper)
Search the register of charities
LittleSkink
Active member
Okay my next meeting finished early had a minute to look at wiki
Archery GB - Wikipedia
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)
Archery GB - Wikipedia
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)
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'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.
LittleSkink
Active member
the cash flow is interesting, it shows where the funding comes from and where it goes
The one Directors salary / pension (c£140k) seems quite a lot for such a small turnover - about the same as Cabinet Minister . . . ?
Charitable Objects would allow it some tax breaks, but I guess (assume) there is a good reason why its not a Charity
The one Directors salary / pension (c£140k) seems quite a lot for such a small turnover - about the same as Cabinet Minister . . . ?
Charitable Objects would allow it some tax breaks, but I guess (assume) there is a good reason why its not a Charity
It is Limited by Guarantee
" A company limited by guarantee (CLBG) is a public company incorporated with the principal liability of its members limited by the constitution to such amount as the members undertake to contribute to the assets of the company if the company is wound up. "
Apparently suitable for clubs or societies as they are not for profit companies.
Last edited:
LittleSkink
Active member
I am pretty sure Charities have limited liability for its officers, but 3rd sector legalities is outside my expertise
Two good reasons to be a charity, are significantly reduced taxation on surplus and ability to claim gift aid from tax paying contributors - these can make the difference between a marginal organisation and a solvent one
Charity Commission for England and Wales - Wikipedia
Two good reasons to be a charity, are significantly reduced taxation on surplus and ability to claim gift aid from tax paying contributors - these can make the difference between a marginal organisation and a solvent one
Charity Commission for England and Wales - Wikipedia
Stretch
Well-known member
“Companies” with relatively highly paid executives should know why they are paying them what they do. If those execs need consultants (and often they do) it should be for services outside the job description of the employed execs.
The alternative is to not pay so much and engage consultants on a broader range of topics.
But I agree they seem to be paying a lot and still using consultants for pretty basic services. Given that financially they are a pretty small-teacup organisation something does seem off.
Stretch
The alternative is to not pay so much and engage consultants on a broader range of topics.
But I agree they seem to be paying a lot and still using consultants for pretty basic services. Given that financially they are a pretty small-teacup organisation something does seem off.
Stretch
LittleSkink
Active member
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
Public sector is way more complex because the organisation doesn't exist to make a profit, it exists for public benefit - not so long ago the Head of HR at the BBC earnt more than the Chief of Defence. So is entertainment more important than protecting the country? Someone thought so
Public sector is way more complex because the organisation doesn't exist to make a profit, it exists for public benefit - not so long ago the Head of HR at the BBC earnt more than the Chief of Defence. So is entertainment more important than protecting the country? Someone thought so
Stretch
Well-known member
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.
Senior politicians are under-paid relative to private sector but it is a chess game that positions them for free money down the road. (Public speaking, lobbying, books - oh hang on they do all that while in role too...). As an example, there are not many CEOs of major corporations who have time to write books while in role or write weekly columns for national newspapers (Ghost writers aside).
Organisations like the BBC should be breeding grounds for talent not paying huge salaries to established talent but I’m getting off topic.
Not that £140k is huge but it is huge for an organisation of this type and financial standing. High salaries in these kinds of orgs need to be linked to performance targets agreed with the membership - does the CEO have performance targets?
Red Stretch
LittleSkink
Active member
time to step away from the exec pay blue touch paper . . .
For those who dont want to read the accounts, there was 1 director with a salary reported. Salary was £99k in 2020 and another £39k in pension contributions
I was hoping to see what they pay out on the insurance, given over £1.3m comes in from subscriptions
For those who dont want to read the accounts, there was 1 director with a salary reported. Salary was £99k in 2020 and another £39k in pension contributions
I was hoping to see what they pay out on the insurance, given over £1.3m comes in from subscriptions