I see in the news today that archery is to benefit from a funding increase from UK Sport. In fact, according to the BBC, archery’s funding has doubled/will double in the run up to Paris 2024. Does that mean AGB will now be more able or willing to help struggling grass roots clubs and stop using hobby archers as a cash cow to fund its Olympic dreams (loaded question!)?
Again this has come up recently. Almost all of the funding for the olympic program already comes from UK sport funding. Recently in 2019 just 1.6% of the membership fee went towards the olympic program, or 76p from the senior fee. So perhaps that contribution could be removed yes, but it's not going to be a night and day difference like your implying. I get that it's tempting to paint this picture of a governing body that exists purely to fund the elite pathway but its utterly not the truth. The vast majority of the membership cost goes towards... the cost, of providing services to the membership.
As for your second comment on results, if you cast your mind back to 2016 AGB was indeed performing poorly for the investment put in, to the point where UK sport axed the funding for the tokyo cycle. It was only due to performances since then with multiple medals at world championships, world cups, and the european games, while running on a fraction of the budget allowed previously, that the olympic program has come back to the point where it's proved its worth again. It's a very different group of athletes, coaches and staff now and frankly we deserve to be judged on our own merits.
Bear in mind that UK sport has cut back on almost every other sport in their program, they wouldn't increase funding for us now if they didn't think we had the potential to get results in Paris and beyond.