|
Below is the SLCGA Committee's response to the EWGA Questionnaire on the proposed EWGA/EGU Merger . The document was not opened up for discussion with members as the Committee felt there was insufficient time, with a deadline return of 30th April, for proper consideration. Members are invited to write to or e-mail County President Anna Adams with their views for onward transmission to the EWGA office.
Discussion points on the proposed EWGA/EGU merger
Generally the Staffordshire Committee felt they should have been better informed before being required to answer the questionnaire. Also the time scale did not allow us to call an (informed) Delegates Meeting.
However, we would submit the following:
1. What would you hope might be achieved from a merger of EWGA and EGU?
A streamlined, more efficient organisation which would lead to economy of scale re handicaps, training, health and safety and child protection. Also less duplication of staff and facilities. Genderless roles, so that talents of staff and volunteers are maximised. A 'common' pool of Advisors, particularly legal.
2. What potential problems do you see that might make merger difficult - or even prevent merger?
Dictatorial and antiquated attitudes currently resulting in difficulties establishing County Partnerships and/or working relationships between Associations and Unions.
CJO's in particular experiencing problems within Junior Golf
Take-over rather than merger
Problems of a possible overall administrative centre, Woodhall Spa not viable for this due to it's poor location (possible training centre for both EGA and EWGA?). Split base could also cause problems.
Standardisation of the Regions may or may not be relevant dependent on the administrative structure and any future proposals.
We know little of the mechanics of men's golf, and (suspect) they little of ours.
3. Considering the imbalance in membership between the EWGA (~120K members) and the EGU (~700K members), how would you see representation on the boards and committees being achieved? Should it be on a proportional basis (ie, 6 men to 1 woman)? On an equal basis (each committee comprising equal numbers of men and women)? Or on a competency basis (best person for the job)?
Whilst competency basis paramount, there should be a minimum requirement of female representation on every committee.
You may feel the initial position should change over time. If so, please give any thoughts on this.
A balance must be achieved on the benefits, or otherwise, or a merger. It is important to assess whether this is an issue if funding from Sport England were not available. Would the merger still have been considered? Also whether, as sceptics would have us believe, awards will be considerably reduced in future years so that funds can be steered to the London 2012 Olympic Games.
4. The subscription fees for individual members are significantly different (Currently EWGA members pay £8. 25 + £2.50 for the LGU and EGU members £4.50). Would you see the men's and women's subscription fees being equal in a merged organisation? How might this be achieved?
We have no breakdown on administration proposals so it is very hard to look at statistics pro rata to subs. We also feel this is a matter to be considered when further details of the proposals are known. However, it would be hard to justify, within a merged organisation, why the ladies had to pay more than their male counterparts, which would probably mean the EGU subsiding the administration costs of the EWGA. Note though that although the EGU subscriptions are less, they have no direct links with their members, unlike the EWGA who have direct communication via the County Association.
It is generally felt that the £2.50 LGU subscription is difficult to justify to the club golfer.
5. If a merger is achieved, would you see the new organisation being administered from a single HQ or from a split base?
Sense would dictate the merged Company running from one location. However, we feel there is little chance of the EGU moving from Woodhall Spa or of the EWGA moving there.
Ideally a single HQ should have the facility for the running of two departments.
The possibility of the Belfry as a sound, central base has been mooted, with Woodhall Spa adapted as a training centre.
We believe in the initial stages, administration would have to be from split bases.
6. Do you think the merger should be 'big bang'? Or would you see the new organisation developing over time top down from management board to county to club?
We cannot see this impacting at County level, let alone within the clubs. The merger should be at the top, and should initially govern the common factors of ladies' and gents' golf .
It would be extremely hard to ask the club member to consider a new merged organisation 'big bang' style after the debacle within EWGA 2008.
7. The chief executive of Sport England recently stated that the funding body favours a merged organisation and will help fund a merger. (This has already happened in Football.) He further stated that if the merger did not progress then the future funding of golf would be viewed 'differently' in three years' time.
Maybe we should ask of the Chief Executive of Sport England whether he is giving any guarantees before we move ahead? Again, would we be where we are now, asking these questions, if it were not for the promise of funding. Think we should take out the financial aspect, and consider the merger in isolation.
If the merger does not go ahead, how would you see the income shortfall (~ £500K) being made up after 2013?
EWGA are being held to ransom, and are being pushed into this merger too quickly. There needs to be a lot of negotiating and possible transition time, and more feedback/information is required. EWGA are still recovering from the problems encountered in 2008 and we really don't feel having a projected shortfall in the region of £500K is going to inspire confidence either by County Committees, Club Committees or the general membership. We have a wealth of experience on the 2009 Management Board, including four new non-executive Directors. What are their suggestions - taking out funding from Sport England, which by all accounts may be retracted if the merger does not go ahead?
8. Do you have any other thoughts that you consider would be helpful to the negotiating team?
Think we should be given access to a lot more information before we could give a considered response to this question, and we would hope that the qualifications and experience of the Non-Executive Directors would be instrumental in giving guidelines to the negotiating team
9. Overall does your County see the benefits of a merged organisation outweighing the disbenefits, or vice versa?
We are mindful that most, if not all, Staffordshire clubs have female representation on the main Committee. We would welcome feedback as to how clubs conceive the benefits, or otherwise, of a merged organisation, but feel in order to do this very much more information than is accessible at the moment must be made available.
Anna Adams
Chairman/President
For Staffordshire Ladies' County Golf Association. |
News & Reports