I tend to agree. More than likely AGB will use some of this windfall to hire new staff like a psychologist or “wellness” coach or some other “expert”.I was saying that I am concerned once the money is spent as allocated will they then spend more money from elsewhere on the same thing.
If a grant is given for say a staff position and that position is then determined to be at a higher salary (lets say the minimum wage has changed as an example) the person will still have to be paid but the top up will come from more general membership funds and there is no possibility that any benefit can be had by the wider membership as a result of the post being created.
Used to get it all the time with research funding in universities. Some depts have got it so wrong they end up subsidising the research to the tune of 50% of the entire departments budget. Some loss leader.
I say again and will continue until I’m blue in the face, no-one really cares about Olympic success or believes it swells the ranks of hobby archers. AGB SHOULD be an organisation which first and foremost looks after the interests of grass roots archers and the clubs to which they belong. Instead it has built an expensive structure to support the myth that Olympic medals and elite programmes are good for archery as a whole.
Cut away all the fat, the elite programmes and all their trimmings and membership costs would fall, clubs would (hopefully) be better supported and membership would rise. It’s a pretty big ask for each new adult archer to stump up £50 odd quid on top of club fees each year. Not so much of an ask if AGB membership was, say, £15 a year. More members mean more funds in the central coffers, SHOULD mean more support for clubs etc. It’s the economies of scale.
And while I’m on, ditch the printed hard copy magazine and, if we have to have it, make it e-mail version only. Can’t for the life of me understand why AGB needs a magazine when it has a website as well (though that could benefit from some work too.)