11 QUESTIONS

10 October 2008

Alan Suttie

I am often asked to pose questions to those involved with the proposed Angling Unity but have generally stepped back from the debate. Unlike others the following questions are impossible for me to ignore or indeed feel it my place to suppress. They are asked for purposes of clarity and are from an authoritative source.

THE NEED FOR CLARITY IN ANGLING
Coarse Angling is a major sport/pastime in England. The National Federation of Anglers Limited (NFA), The Salmon and Trout Association (STA) and the National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA) are very diverse in structure, availability, popularity and retail sales. Each have their own administration, organised national championships and send representative teams to international championships. NFA Scotland and NFA Wales operate in a similar way. Sport England only provides funding to English sports clubs/individuals and the NFA only represents Coarse Angling in England.

QUESTIONS

  1. The STA are no longer going to join the proposed new unified body and will remain the main body representing STA clubs throughout the UK. It has been seen time and time again that Salmon and Trout and Coarse Angling do not see eye to eye. How many English STA members will want to join a body heavily influenced by Coarse angling when the STA is there to represent their interests?
  2. Sport England funds sports based on performance criteria - KPI’s. Funding was made available to the Angling Development Board Ltd (ABD) for three years until 2009, based on KPI’s being achieved. The NFA was the only body to achieve these targets when funding was made to ADB. Why was no funding paid to the NFA to recognise this?
  3. The NFA overspent its income in the last three years to November 2007 by over £270,000 in developing Club Mark, there education certificate, coaching and producing an instructional video. If the NFA continues to overspend at its current rate, and it appears that it will, then the company will become insolvent sometime in 2009. In accordance with company law, the NFA should inform Companies House of the position and should cease trading. Subscriptions for 2009 should not be collected, as the NFA will not be able to offer a full years’ membership. When will members be informed of this situation?
  4. The ADB was set up as a company with funding from 2006. What has it developed that had not already been developed?
  5. What will be the funding for ADB after 2009?
  6. If the NFA goes out of business, who will be responsible for the administration of ADB? Have the audited accounts for ADB been published?
  7. How will the proposed new body (Angling Unity) be funded? Have funds been promised by Sport England? Will there be an individual/club membership?  With very few of STA members joining and NFSA members uncommitted, will all the funding come from Coarse fishing?
  8. If the funding is achieved from whatever source, how will those funds be applied internally - KPI’s or membership?
  9. If the proposed body is set up it will require separate internal management departments for each type of fishing. Will the enlarged body have the necessary expertise in running Coarse Angling that is required and is not apparent at the moment?
  10. Unity in Angling.  The NFA has excellent lawyers well versed in fisheries law. The NFA fisheries office produces detailed reports on all aspects of fisheries and fishing problems. These reports are never sent to members. Any sports club who are members of their governing body are entitled  to much reduced insurance premiums. Why do NFA members need to join ACA and NAFAC?
  11. When Government deals with environmental matters, such legislation is for the whole of the UK. A standing committee to represent fisheries for the whole of the UK is a must. Is such a committee (The Moran Committee in the past) to be set up?

Questions asked by Major (retired) Peter L Emery. Former NFA Director responsible for Finance

back