Seems to have gone under the Radar

Geophys2

Active member
AIUK Saviour
I assume that figure would also include things like pension contribution and employers NI etc.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I thought it was just string it, check braceheight, and shoot for years.
It's only in the last year and a half that people on the barebow Facebook group showed me that tuning gives smaller groups.
I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat.
Yes, a lot of people don't even know enough to know what questions to ask. And the convention at clubs was always not to offer advice/coaching without being asked for it which cements the problem.
 

Steve Ruis

Supporter
Supporter
When the Professional Golfers of America (PGA) first organized in the late 1920's they created two educational programs: one for coaches and one for golf course superintendents. In order to grow their sport, they saw the needs as having somewhere to play and having someone available to help you play better. I think this strategy is still more than a little valid being applied to our sport. Our organizations need to not just train coaches but support them in their efforts. And the sites at which we shoot arrows get almost zero help in staying open and safe. I am doing my small part by creating the beginnings of a professional literature for archery coaches and supporting a blog for archery coaches. More needs to be done.
 

malbro

Instinctive Archer
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
These numbers show that with 22 paid staff and a wages bill of £1,341,909. = £60,995. each, now I'm sure most of those staff are not on anything close to £60k, so the ones at the top are earning how much.
That info is in the accounts, copy available through link in my previous email, in my view far too much. It appears there is only 1 Director who is earning £140,000 + £8,400 pension contribution.
 
Last edited:

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
It is quite common for organisatiosn to create internal cost centres and charge each other for their services. so the admin may well cover HR and they charge the elite funding cost centre for doing their payroll and that squeezes extra monay out of the grant giving authorities. the problem you get is when the cost of administering all of this money shuffling makes it necessary to create jobs to do the work that otherwise wouldnt exist.
Wimbledon creates a huge income for the LTA but they dont actually run Wimbledon but they will have a series of charges in their accounts that show they have spent money on being given money. It is a bit like if I sat around with a begging bowl I would charge you for chucking a few pence in or at least show that in my accounts that it cost a percentage of my time to beg so that has to be accounted for and if I dot get amy money in my tin that day I charge my costs to other income sources.
Amazon nets out all if its income to places like Luxembourg and Eire, where they have low corporation taxes. Same thing really, mitiagte anything you can and charge someone else if possible.
 

AndyS

Supporter
Supporter
The way I read the figures, the £1,341,909 is for all 39 staff including directors, not just the 22 AGB funded. This then breaks down into:
  • £652,325 for the 17 grant funded positions, so an average of £38,372 for the grant funded.
  • £720,784 for the 22 AGB funded positions - an average of £32,763 for AGB funded
I find the directors section a bit ambiguous though - the "Directors' Remuneration" section lists £140,000 remuneration plus £8,400 pension contributions and says "The number of directors for whom retirement benefits are accruing under defined contribution schemes amounted to 1"
So presumably 1 director gets the £8,400 pension contributions. But does the £140,000 go to the same individual? or is this £140,000 carved up between the 9 directors listed on page 2 of the document?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

ATH

Member
These numbers show that with 22 paid staff and a wages bill of £1,341,909. = £60,995. each, now I'm sure most of those staff are not on anything close to £60k, so the ones at the top are earning how much.
As AndyS shows above me it's a lot less than that, you've divided the wrong numbers. And bearing in mind these are gross costs as well, so the average take home salary is going to be lower again.
 
Top