British Fencing's Review of World Class Programme

[munkey]

My concern about the review is that the range of opinion about the WCP seems to have shrunk. In the initial announcement we were told: "As a first step, the Board expects Alex Newton and her coaches to provide their internal report on the results and lessons of the Programme over the last four years. They and the Board will get independent advice from performance experts - the Board is considering the right people (in consultation with UK Sport) and will announce the names soon. "

It now seems that no independent performance experts are being asked for advice and that Peter King will be the only voice that wasn't directly involved that will have input. I think it would be very useful to get advice from other sources that have an understanding of what a world class fencing programme looks like. I have no doubt that Peter King is an expert but it seems reasonable to assume that he won't have had much contact with the people that produce Olympic fencing medals for other countries. This seems a serious omission to me.

[DSSabre]

Munkey,

I'm not sure why we expected any more from BF. If the review only consists of the team responsible for the olympic selections is it really the review we were all hoping for? Maybe things will change but ifeel it will be a slow process

DS

[hokers]

Bump. As I said yesterday, would be good to hear an update about this from BF. Was notably absent from the board meeting update.

[DSSabre]

So any news on this?

[Foilling Around]

A review is no use if it does not come up with a way forward. That can only be done after we know the outcome of the funding review. That happens mid December so I would not expect anything until after that happens.

[Keith.A.Smith]

Also I see that Beazley now have a person on the BFA Board. Maybe a sign they will put in more funding?

[munkey]

A review is no use if it does not come up with a way forward. That can only be done after we know the outcome of the funding review. That happens mid December so I would not expect anything until after that happens.

I disagree. It would have been perfectly possible to complete a review of the past 5 or 6 years. Future plans are obviously dependent on the funding available for those plans but that doesn't change what has already happened. Other sports have managed to produce post-Olympic reviews without knowing their future funding. My worry is that the review will tell us very little and that the many concerns I and a lot of other people have will be swept away in a flurry of excitement at the prospect of 4 years of funding and new plans. Unless we can review the previous plans with detail and candour, we are likely to repeat mistakes we could avoid.

[Paul N-M]

Also I see that Beazley now have a person on the BFA Board. Maybe a sign they will put in more funding?

What! please will someone now see fit to inform us of their role?

Paul N-M

[TomA]

What! please will someone now see fit to inform us of their role?

Paul N-M

http://britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=705

Pitt the Younger or Pitt the Elder I wonder?

[cesh_fencing]

Board updated on website

David Teasdale - Chair
Julia Bracewell
David King
Murray Morrison
Alp Orge
Graham Paul
Libby Payne
John Troiano
Georgina Usher
William Pitt

How many are voted on and how many have been 'placed'?

[hokers]

How many are voted on and how many have been 'placed'?

8/10 elected I think.
The whole issue about how many elected directors that was the subject of the EGM earlier this year has still not obviously been resolved. Presumably this is another one of the tasks ahead of the new board.

I agree with munkey, we ought to have had some results by now - I can't agree that a review of a programme has to come complete with a roadmap for change going forward, so it shouldn't be dependent on future funding announcements really.

[Paul N-M]

http://britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=705

Pitt the Younger or Pitt the Elder I wonder?

So is this a 'non executive' type role but not being described as such officially?
More clarification BF please.
Whilst many of us are very appreciative of the money Beazley put into BF I for one have a problem with a 'non exec' who has such influence.
That is not where a non exec should be coming from if they are to perform their role properly and not one BF should entertain.

Paul N-M

[Baldric]

So is this a 'non executive' type role but not being described as such officially?
More clarification BF please.
Whilst many of us are very appreciative of the money Beazley put into BF I for one have a problem with a 'non exec' who has such influence.
That is not where a non exec should be coming from if they are to perform their role properly and not one BF should entertain.

Paul N-M

<shakes head in disbelief>

Just to be absolutely clear to any potential sponsors for England Fencing - if you are generous enough to both sponsor us, AND lend us a board level specialist in marketing and communication, then we would be very pleased to accept BOTH the financial and the practical assistance.

[Paul N-M]

<shakes head in disbelief>

Just to be absolutely clear to any potential sponsors for England Fencing - if you are generous enough to both sponsor us, AND lend us a board level specialist in marketing and communication, then we would be very pleased to accept BOTH the financial and the practical assistance.

Ray you are missing the point.
Non elected roles have to be VERY clearly defined to the membership.
If you sit on a board you presumably have a vote. You are no longer just giving money and advice however expert and however much appreciated.

Paul N-M

[Ronald Velden]

I am sure that there has been some progress at Board level. There have been at least two Board Meetings sofar and I believe that others are planned.

The priority at the moment has to be the contracts with UK Sport and Sport England. Decisions on these should be imminent by middle of this month.The World Class Review would be dealt with by same people as
those handling contracts so that we need to be patient.

Other matters which I am sure have been looked into are the BFA's Finances and how money has been spent.
This was obviously a matter of serious concern at AGM and I believe a priority of acting CEO.

The CURRENT ARTICLES [not those presented earlier this year at EGM] allow for 2 Coopts onto the Board. One was allocated to David Teasdale as Chair. The other was previously held by Piers Martin. He was required to stand down at AGM. The appointment of the gentleman from Beazley means that in future the CEO will not be
a member of the Board. That is in my view a good thing.

Let's be clear it is a relatively short time since new members of Board were elected and we have also lost the
CEO. I would rather that the sport takes time and acts methodically in its decision making than what has happened in past. It is important that in future the sport makes good decisions and not just those for the sake
of change.

[JohnL]

Damn Ron, what a reasonable post.

We'll hear you singing Kumbaya in the background soon!!!!!

[Keith.A.Smith]

I too agree with Ronald. The new directors need time and indeed will shortly need to look at appointing a new CEO too. They have plenty to be getting on with and I iamgine some are funding the whole process quite a strain.

The key thing is to find further directors in sympathy with aims and aspirations with the newly elected directors for the next wave of board elections, which take place in April/May.

I am sure that early in 2013 the new direction of the BFA will be spelt out, as it is needed to be known so that we can vote acordingly when new candidates for the boadr stand. Also by Christmas we will al know what funding BFA will have to use for development and international and how the Board has decided to allocate the Beazley funding going forward. (if they have any choice).

I also know that the review of committees is on going.

[RIchardn]

Ray you are missing the point.
Non elected roles have to be VERY clearly defined to the membership.
If you sit on a board you presumably have a vote. You are no longer just giving money and advice however expert and however much appreciated.

Paul N-M

Paul, I think you are missing the point and Ray hit the nail on the head.
It is right that we have some non elected board members and we take full advantage of their expertise just because they have not been elected does not mean that their opinions and skills are worth less than that of those who are elected and their vote at board meetings should be just as important.
A small number of non elected but experienced is a very useful addition to a board.
Being elected doesn't always make you the best qualified people to run an organisation - just look at the government!

[ED_R]

Let's be clear it is a relatively short time since new members of Board were elected and we have also lost the
CEO. I would rather that the sport takes time and acts methodically in its decision making than what has happened in past. It is important that in future the sport makes good decisions and not just those for the sake
of change.

From what I am hear (which is not much!) there is a great deal of work going on behind the scenes.

There were a lot of hopes and dreams invested though when the membership elected the new board, and it has been reminiscently quiet ever since.

My guess is that the members could do with a little update to reassure that we haven't been forgotten, and that even if progress is slow and steady, that it is all moving in the right direction.

[Foilling Around]

I think a big point of the election was that there were candidates elected with the skills and experience to do the job. Ranging from funding bodies to directors major companies. Lets hope people with complementary skills set stand in the spring.