Seems to have gone under the Radar

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I guess a club doing this could have some sort of rebate for members that wanted to join AGB...
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
Are there any disadvantages for clubs not belonging to AGB other than not being able to attend tournaments, records, county selection, shooting at other clubs, governance and cheap washing machines :)
 

Nictrix

Member
I shot at my club for a year using their insurance. The only downside I could see was what has already been said, I couldnt shoot at other clubs and I couldnt take part in competitions.
I only joined AGB for these 2 reasons. If all clubs had their own insurance and covered visitors shooting, I dont think there would be any reason to join AGB.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Are there any disadvantages for clubs not belonging to AGB other than not being able to attend tournaments, records, county selection, shooting at other clubs, governance and cheap washing machines :)
Don't forget you couldn't get a couple of quid off a Volvo. Oh wait...
 

AJBrady

Active member
I looked at the insure4sport insurance to see what cover costs were for shooting at home. £26.00 or £17.50 with black friday discount. I thought that was okay until I read all the caveats in the schedule. It does not cover negligence, so if your home range does not have sufficient netting/overshoot, safety measures you will not be covered. Also it requires you to get the permission of any neighbors that may be affected by your shooting. Basically, if you don't think any neighbors will be affected you probably don't need insurance anyway. The list of caveats was quite extensive.
I must admit I don't mind if my club arranges their own insurance and I can still shoot as an AGB member but £15 per archer sounds a lot for group insurance.
The whole point of Liability Insurance is that it covers your negligence! If you've not been negligent in some way then a third party can't claim off you. Have you read your Home Insurance policy to see what is covered under the Liability Section?
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
The whole point of Liability Insurance is that it covers your negligence! If you've not been negligent in some way then a third party can't claim off you. Have you read your Home Insurance policy to see what is covered under the Liability Section?
I do read all my policies, that's why I read this one........ Quote..."
WHAT IS NOT COVERED1. Liability to any of Your employees2. Liability to a member of Your immediate family (spouse, children, parents, siblings and their families) 3. Negligence or any legal liability "...

probably why it's cheap and why I didn't take it up. It's under section 2 for property damage but that's all I was interested in. And if the courts decide it's criminal negligence rather than civil, you're screwed anyway. Injury to another person may well be treated as criminal negligence.
 
Last edited:

AJBrady

Active member
I do read all my policies, that's why I read this one........ Quote..."
WHAT IS NOT COVERED1. Liability to any of Your employees2. Liability to a member of Your immediate family (spouse, children, parents, siblings and their families) 3. Negligence or any legal liability "...

probably why it's cheap and why I didn't take it up. It's under section 2 for property damage but that's all I was interested in. And if the courts decide it's criminal negligence rather than civil, you're screwed anyway. Injury to another person may well be treated as criminal negligence.
As you say, that's under Section 2, Third Party Property Damage, and makes no sense whatsoever. Such a wording would normally say something like, "Negligence or any legal liability arising out of .....etc" but it doesn't (and in any case the Limit of Liability under this Section is ridiculously low). Knowing Aviva I think you have stumbled across a serious misprint.

I mentioned Home Insurance, because you may find that your leisure activities are covered under the Liability Section
 

ATH

Member
Couldn’t agree with you more. And the reason they believe the key to retention is progression is their craving for success at the Olympics and, to a lesser degree, other international competition. If the board members at AGB shifted their focus to promoting archery as a fun sport and concentrated on doing everything they could to promote and support clubs then they would soon have a bigger pool of archers from which to choose for the “elite” programme. As it is I believe a lot of Average Joe and Jane archers see themselves as a cash cow to fund AGB’s overly ambitious and ruinous desire for medals.
Which is a common and problematic misconception. How much of the membership fee do you think goes into the elite programme? What %age of the olympic programme do you think is funded by membership fees?
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Which is a common and problematic misconception. How much of the membership fee do you think goes into the elite programme? What %age of the olympic programme do you think is funded by membership fees?
Here you go - from the 2019 AGB yearbook:

Screenshot from 2020-12-05 11-14-35.png
Basically the elite programme is a quarter of their expenditure. Of course not all of the income comes from membership fees, but a lot of it still comes indirectly from members; from competitions and coaching fees, being advertised to, etc.
 

Sinbad

Member
With 2021 being the Olympics and we have a full set of 6 that made it, they wont cut back on the elite side, maybe that is why they are in chats with the other organisation's, see if they can draw cash in from that side.
 

malbro

Instinctive Archer
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Here you go - from the 2019 AGB yearbook:

View attachment 8428
Basically the elite programme is a quarter of their expenditure. Of course not all of the income comes from membership fees, but a lot of it still comes indirectly from members; from competitions and coaching fees, being advertised to, etc.
The intersting area is the breakdown of the membership costs, a huge part of their staff costs have been hidden in this item, could be to make members think they are getting a bigger share of the cake. The 2019 inancial results show
grant income £1,904,371 and membership income £1,526,755 out of total income of £3,949,521, there are 39 staff of which 17 are grant funded with a total wages bill of £1,341,909. These figures come from the annual report of The Grand National Archery Society for 2019, which is the real name of Archery GB, and do not match up with the figures from the yearbook.
 

Attachments

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
They're also a bit disingenuous when they break down the expenditure in more detail in the yearbook - they separate the membership fees from the grants into two pie charts and show the day to day stuff funded by members fees and elites separately funded by grants, which makes it look like the elite stuff is free, which it's not. The grants are offsetting the costs to the members of the elite squad, but they aren't free.
 

Shirt

Well-known member
Without "the elite stuff" you wouldn't get the grants. You're right in that the office team that support members also support the elite squads in part (e.g. Finance teams) but the squad-specific costs such as a head coach and their immediate support team who sort out squad travel etc comes out of the grant money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH

ATH

Member
Here you go - from the 2019 AGB yearbook:

View attachment 8428
Basically the elite programme is a quarter of their expenditure. Of course not all of the income comes from membership fees, but a lot of it still comes indirectly from members; from competitions and coaching fees, being advertised to, etc.
So this answered the question "what % of expenditure goes on the elite program", but not the one I asked which is "what % of membership fees goes toward the elite program". Your correct that not all the income come from membership fees; if it did 24% would be the correct answer. But there is the small matter of the UK sport funding to consider, so really what we're trying to work out here is what amount of the membership fee is used to "top up" the UK sport funding. According to the same book its £0.76/per fee for the elite program... so thats 1.6% of the membership fee for that year:

Screenshot 2020-12-07 at 08.40.58.png

Of course you could fairly include the compound squad in that as well, since they get the square root of bugger all from UK sport; which would bring it up to 6.2% of the membership fee at £2.84. Now I appreciate everyone wants to complain about fees and the elite program makes a great visible target because big numbers slosh around at the top of it once you put everything together with the UK sport funding, but I think the numbers here show it's really not making a big impact on the membership fee.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Yes, I was aware that I wasn't quite answering your question, but it's a difficult one to answer honestly as AGB have multiple income sources and ring fenced money blah blah. And your well thought out answer isn't wrong. But really, it's not like the pound notes have names written on them to allow them to be tracked as they go through the coffers. At the end of the day AGB have a bucket of money and they spend a quarter of it on elite programs.

And personally I don't mind that some of my money goes to the elite, and if you slice the pie right it looks like a trivial amount.

But, there are so many trivial amounts. A couple of quid to the compounders, great; safeguarding, yes, I suppose we need to do that; a few pennies for project Kamala, ok, I'd feel a curmudgeon if I objected to that; three quid to the region, yes, they do naff all but it's only three quid; etc etc; and suddenly you're paying £78 for £1.68 worth of insurance, and you've no choice but to pay it.

And that's kind of the problem in my opinion; the elites get so much time, money and attention from AGB for their £78 and the casual archer gets so little in tangible terms. It's not that the elites shouldn't exist, or that the money shouldn't be spent on them, or that they don't deserve the attention. They do. It's the disparity.
 
Last edited:

8ballali

Member
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.
 

LAC Mark

Active member
The intersting area is the breakdown of the membership costs, a huge part of their staff costs have been hidden in this item, could be to make members think they are getting a bigger share of the cake. The 2019 inancial results show
grant income £1,904,371 and membership income £1,526,755 out of total income of £3,949,521, there are 39 staff of which 17 are grant funded with a total wages bill of £1,341,909. These figures come from the annual report of The Grand National Archery Society for 2019, which is the real name of Archery GB, and do not match up with the figures from the yearbook.
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.
 
Top