LTA have funding cut owing to a fall in participation numbers

Draper says ‘..we face a huge challenge to increase the numbers playing tennis regularly in challenging economic times but participation is our top priority’ Is it? Now this may be a product of me only taking notice of articles where the acronym ‘LTA’ is followed by ‘Murray’ or ‘Davis Cup failure’, but participation doesn’t feel like this organisation’s top priority. I think the LTA concentrates on top flight tennis to the detriment of other levels. I suppose you could argue that should Murray win a slam then many young people would be inspired to take the game up to try to emulate him and that would mean a vest increase in playing numbers and a proportionately bigger pool of talent at the top end; but I reckon that the infrastructure (conditions, pricing) are against this and youngsters taking up the game (and their parents who will have to taxi them about should they show promise) would soon become disillusioned by the generally poor standard of courts and high cost of hiring. I think participation and improvement of conditions should be their no. 1 priority to reverse this trend with or without a British slam win to galvanize things. Realistically, Murray has 3 to 5 years, then what? There is no-one following him and not much likelihood either

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/03/lta-funding-sport-england-tennis

The LTA remains elitist, out of touch and broken and has been this way for aeons. We can't keep relying on such a decayed institution - if we don't open up access to tennis then yeah British prospects will be extremely bleak after Murray's gone. We keep hearing there are talented youngsters on the way and somehow they never emerge!

Cutting from the £25mdown to £24.5m is hardly worth a section in a newspaper. Just imagine if Liam Broady and Laura Robson werent tennis players the drop would've been much higher.

Aeon? Was that pun intended

The LTA is arss backwards. All these different coloured balls for different ages. Isn't any wonder why they in terms of development the LTA suck arss. Look at Watson and Robson who decided on progressing elsewhere. For me it requires a massive overhaul. Let youngsters from the age of 8 onwards hit on a full size court with yellow balls. The system as it stands is flawed. Andy Murray under 16 was top junior in the country and had no way of moving forward hence why Judy took him out of the LTA. Exposing kids to the conditions of a full size court and proper balls help earth out the promosing youngsters and also expose the not so talented youngsters. That way money is not wasted on kids who get to 17-18 and realise that tennis is not for them and that they can't earn a living from the game.

All this sport for all crap has virtually killed the competitive spirit of British sport.

All this sport for all crap has virtually killed the competitive spirit of British sport.

After Murray calls it a day there is more chance of Mozambique winning the Davis Cup than a British player making the world top 20. Up a creek without a paddle!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

All this sport for all crap has virtually killed the competitive spirit of British sport.

After Murray calls it a day there is more chance of Mozambique winning the Davis Cup than a British player making the world top 20. Up a creek without a paddle!

Provided they avoid floods

legendkillarV2 wrote:Aeon? Was that pun intended

Have to be honest - no, I wasn't being that clever, but well spotted!

Roger Draper's success in tennis, success as chief executive of Sports England, and success as chief executive of the Lawn Tennis Association has warranted the following impressive wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Draper

That is indeed impressive! Bit too long-winded though...

With tennis minnows Belgium beating GB in the Davis Cup, it is instructive to check the strength in depth between these two teams, after six years of Roger Draper at the helm

Belgium within the top 200
59 Rochus, Olivier (BEL)
68 Darcis, Steve (BEL)
70 Malisse, Xavier (BEL)
112 Goffin, David (BEL)
145 Bemelmans, Ruben (BEL)
184 Authom, Maxime (BEL)

GBR (excluding A Murray) within the top 200
154 Ward, James (GBR)

D'you think someone should tell Draper that higher numbers aren't better in this context?

Andy Murray winning a slam will increase participation numbers? Invest most of the money in the top players... and those around the top players and that will increase participation numbers? Trickle down effect? Pfttt.

Investment should be at the roots. More people playing and having fun should be the aim and the priority and if top players come through all very well. Not the other way round!

The LTA focus a ton of money on what they call their "Elite" system. From what I've read about 40% of their revenue goes to the so called elite which comprises around a hundred or so individuals and 60% to the rest of the nation. They are looking to buy success via expensive facilities and coaching for the best players whilst everyone else can stew. They hope all the money can buy them a couple of op 50 players while the rest of the sport in Britain continues to rot. Idiocy of the highest order. Nothing will ever change in British tennis. It will always be crap I'm afraid.

SDB it 's worse than that.

Most of our near neighbors long ago realised that tennis (like any other sport) needs a base of players to support the pyramid i.e. lots and lots of "part-time" club and parks players to fuel the top.

The problem in this country is two fold. We don't have enough people playing at the base i.e. not enough taking up the sport at a relatively young age. Those that do drift away very quickly in the teens as well leaving an already threadbare structure devoid of enough talent to sustain it.

I object to any direct funding of a player without an investment interest in that players future earnings.

The LTA should be organised on the basis of maximising income and disbursing 100% on expanded participation. Use investment in promising payers as a profit generating activity.

Individuals go into tennis to further their personal interest alone; investment in them should reflect the nature of their ambition.

If you look at British cycling and British tennis, they were in a very similar position ten - fifteen years ago. Both on the track and on the road Britain were cycling minnows and not on the map. Now the British seem to be everywhere in international cycling - 19 year olds winning world track championships (e.g. Laura Trott), British winning international road races and finishing on the podium in tour events (Cavendish, Wiggans, Cooke, Pooley, Lizzie Armitstead, Chris Froome). Whereas British tennis - the mens tennis has never ever been so weak in terms of strength in depth.

How did cycling do it? They invested heavily in the elite essentially.

Bogbrush - Has any nation ever funded sports people and then taken a slice out of their future earnings? I doubt it.

People seem to think that we're the only country that funds our athletes to train and compete, when in fact we're one of the few that does it in an open way.

djlovesyou wrote:How did cycling do it? They invested heavily in the elite essentially.

Bogbrush - Has any nation ever funded sports people and then taken a slice out of their future earnings? I doubt it.

People seem to think that we're the only country that funds our athletes to train and compete, when in fact we're one of the few that does it in an open way.

This person doesn't think that. I am quite certain there is money wasted helping private individuals to be a success to no tangible benefit to the population in most parts of the Workd.

Most of it is, like the London Olympics, driven by the greed and ego of politicians in sports bodies and government.

Nore Staat wrote:If you look at British cycling and British tennis, they were in a very similar position ten - fifteen years ago. Both on the track and on the road Britain were cycling minnows and not on the map. Now the British seem to be everywhere in international cycling - 19 year olds winning world track championships (e.g. Laura Trott), British winning international road races and finishing on the podium in tour events (Cavendish, Wiggans, Cooke, Pooley, Lizzie Armitstead, Chris Froome). Whereas British tennis - the mens tennis has never ever been so weak in terms of strength in depth.

Correct, but could I care less what Chris Hoy etc. win for themselves? I could not.

The thing is velodrome cycling along with sports like Archery and Rowing are pretty minor in terms of mass participation. If any country piles resources into those types of sports they are likely to gain from it. The Chinese are so successful at Olympic sports because they pile resources into sports that no-one else cares that much about.

Why do you think Briatin did so well in 2008, velodrome cycling, rowing, yachting?? Minor participation events where if you put a ton of money into it you are likely to yield significant benefits. Britain of course did far less well in the major participation events such as Athletics for example.

In tennis, tou can't focus resources on an "elite" system like they do in other Olympic sports because it is a global mass participation sport that has a competition structure that makes the Olympics a small side show rather than the pinnacle of the sport. The LTA must stop using an Olympic focus and realise that the only way success will come is to get as many people playing as possible.

Success = lots of people playing. Individual elite players are just incidental...

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:If you look at British cycling and British tennis, they were in a very similar position ten - fifteen years ago...

Correct, but could I care less what Chris Hoy etc. win for themselves? I could not.

But you do care what Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray etc win for themselves? Are you saying that the LTA should be run with for profit aims - providing loans that have to be paid back with interest or loans linked to percentage of future winnings and sponsorship deal returns

hawkeye wrote:Success = lots of people playing. Individual elite players are just incidental...

Yep, that's how I see it.

Nore Staat wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:If you look at British cycling and British tennis, they were in a very similar position ten - fifteen years ago...

Correct, but could I care less what Chris Hoy etc. win for themselves? I could not.

But you do care what Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray etc win for themselves? Are you saying that the LTA should be run with for profit aims - providing loans that have to be paid back with interest or loans linked to percentage of future winnings and sponsorship deal returns

Firstly, I care about being entertained, my taste is for virtuosity and jaw-dropping play, and I have a loyalty to those who do it best. That's why I cheer Federer on.

Secondly, yes, that's the only basis on which I would provide support if I were running the LTA. Every other cent (and that would be greater if we'd made wise investments) would go to grass roots participation. Let talented players with ambition to earn millions made pitch for the support if they want, but I'd be a cautious investor wanting to see evidence of talent and commitment. That might help weed out the wasters and nobodies who get much of the pointless support now.
However, rather than loans I'd take a share in their winnings. If they're rubbish and earn nothing that would be my bad and I'd lose my stake.

You make it sound like it's easy to pick out the future stars from an early age.

You're incredibly naive if you think that in any funding system, you're not going to fund a reasonable percentage of players who don't make it for one reason or another. The fallacy that all these players are 'wasters' is one that people like to throw around.

I'm not even going to humour the 'future earnings' idea.

I think there is much un-due criticism of BB's idea of future earnings.

Look at the LTA. Beyond Murray, who has the LTA brought through on the mens side? Exactly. 7 years and no-one of substantional success. So you see why there needs to be a look at it to make it more sustainable. Say you have 20 youngsters and the LTA hands them £100,000 grants to 'develop' and they fall off the radar by 19. That is £2M down the drain. You could say it is like further education at university. You don't earn because you choose to earn below the minimum yearly wage that prohibits you paying back the debt. Players that don't make it in the tennis world become debt to the LTA.

Take the case of Andy Murray. If you were to argue that the LTA asked for 2% of his future earnings and given the guy has earned nearly $25M in prize money, not like he is going to be in the dole queue anytime soon now is it? The LTA needs to become sustainable. They can't keep hiding behind participation excuses. Do you think Roger Draper cares for the game? No. He purely is driven by protectionism. All he wants to do is keep his job. Cutting funds might be the kick up the rear he needs.

The coaching element within the LTA is poor. Look at all the lavish coaches Draper hired. Annacone, Martens, Hutchins. They are good with players that are already established professionals. The way forward for the LTA is to try and get tennis into schools. The LTA fail at the youngsters important years from 16 onwards. When a player hits the top of the LTA rankings, there is nowhere for them to go in terms of quality opposition to further their skills. Take the Spanish. Their youngsters hit with professional players who are ranked beyond 200 in the rankings when they are 15. Murray cited this as the massive difference between the LTA and the Spanish tennis association.

The LTA will appeal to Private Sector firms to 'sponsor' them in the wake of funding cuts. The LTA is an organisation, not a charity. They need to yield results and maybe a slight commercial mindset maybe improve standards within the organisation.

I too don't see the problem with paying the LTA back if a player makes it. Certainly they should refund any support they were given - the money can then be used to fund the next cohort of promising players.

I know it's all wildly theoretical, but 2% of the 25m quoted gives 500k, which seems a bit too low?

I think 2% is fair reckoner. £500K could fund another 4-5 upcoming players. 2% would be generous if the LTA could provide 5 top 100 women and men. You don't want to charge too much given that it would start to be viewed as a 'tax' and would put off new blood.

I suppose 500k is still a lot of money.

Do you really think new players would be put off by say 5%? I mean the LTA would be taking the considerable risk that the player wouldn't actually "make it"? I would totally buy insurance if it was sold on such favourable terms!

I think players would.

If I was a pro and was funded to the tune of £200k by the LTA and then went on to forge a successful career and say was on the 5% tariff and over my career I earned £30M and paid £1.5M, not sure I would be happy with that deal. The LTA need to be fair. I think the tariff could be flexible based on a PBR (Payment By Result) by where the tariff could be negotiable if the player is able to succeed say break into top 50 or win an x amount of tournaments or even a Slam.

It also isn't just the numbers. The biggest problem with the LTA is they want to run everything and stick their oar in at every turn.

Do what the Spanish have done. Get some of this LTA dosh out of their grubby mitts, set up some real academies with autonomy, tell the LTA to take a back seat , pension off Draper and get a system where talent is nurtured and developed within the academies. No more of the LTA interfering whenever some spotty ten year old kid impresses at his local club only to have any chances he has ruined by those who should know better.

I agree the de-centralisation of the LTA NB. Certainly rid of Roehampton.

I don't think the whole 'Let's go Spanish' method is the best. In fairness who will Spain have coming in behind the likes of Nadal, Ferrer, Verdasco, Lopez, Ferrero, Almagro? Same with the French. Who is coming in behind Tsonga, Gasquet, Llodra, Simon, Monfils?

Look at the womens side and you have a few good prospects. The LTA don't need to get carried away and say look to produce Slam winners. Let's look at cracking the top 100 in both sexes.

Is not all doom and gloom. I wish someone like Henman would become the executive as his experience of being homegrown would be invaluable.

I suppose it all depends on what is the remit of the LTA as whether or not it should be providing loans funding, training support, an elite development programme etc.

Roger Draper became the chief executive of the LTA in 2006 blowing his own trumpet and boldly setting targets that he has failed miserably to achieve.

The biggest worry has been the turnover of top level staff during his continuing stint at the top, the flak and negative comments the LTA have received from some of the top level players (e.g. Richard Bloomfield a year or two ago, the parents of the Broady's, Andrew Murray ...), the fall off of promising players (e.g. Bogdanovic), the early retirement of disenchanted young players (Cavaday, O'Brien).

Look at what Draper did when he came in. Got in coaches from abroad that had no idea how to: 1) Develop coaching standards in a country. 2) How to set about ending bureaucracy involvment in sporting development of youngsters.

Draper is a prat and the sooner he goes, the better. They can't do any worse.

I would like to know who Roger Draper is accountable to - who decided to appoint him and who decides he is doing a good job.

I think last year there was a government select committee (or something) looking into the performance of the LTA and whether or not they were making best use of government money. They had Roger Draper come in for an interview. I am not sure what the result of it all was.

You don't have to look far to find critical reports of Roger Draper: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1369318/Roger-Draper-He-supposed-save-British-tennis--worse.html


here is a nice quote from that article:

Paul Annacone, LTA head of men’s tennis at Wimbledon 2007 wrote:I hope there will be four to seven players knocking on the door of the top 20 by 2012.

More snippets
June 2010: With no Englishman in the main draw, it is GB’s worst showing at Wimbledon in 133 years with only Andy Murray through to the 2nd round.

September 2010: Despite 42 per cent of the 2009 budget being spent on elite performance, the LTA misses all its ranking targets set two years previously.

Regarding the funding proposal;

It's a business transaction. As such it carries risk (hence I am not being "incredibly naive", dj, I factor in the probability that it will be a fail even though I'd want to assess applicants thoroughly) and each investment must carry the potential of a profit, wth the portfolio as a whole highly likely to do so.
The return must, if successful, pay for the risk of failure and leave an expected profit afterwards. If a player receiving say £300k of zero recourse, zero interest support doesn't want to find himself seeing £1.5m of his earnings when he makes top 4 going back to his investor, then find another backer. Good luck wth that effort, this would be he best deal in town!

Think of this as a normal business investment, nothing more, nothing less, and you'll see it's perfectly reasonable.

Of course you'd need to offer a quality backing, and in my view the best bet would be simply to fund the player through an overseas based top class system rather than trying to create one here. That's just more diversion of funds from MY prime objective of expanded participation.

Nore Staat wrote:You don't have to look far to find critical reports of Roger Draper: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1369318/Roger-Draper-He-supposed-save-British-tennis--worse.html


here is a nice quote from that article:

Paul Annacone, LTA head of men’s tennis at Wimbledon 2007 wrote:I hope there will be four to seven players knocking on the door of the top 20 by 2012.

That in itself showed the exact belief he had. The LTA could not get rid of him because of the payoff and jumped for joy when he left. As with Martens.

Not sure who makes the appointments at the LTA. It does need some form re-structuring.

bogbrush wrote:Regarding the funding proposal;

It's a business transaction. As such it carries risk (hence I am not being "incredibly naive", dj, I factor in the probability that it will be a fail even though I'd want to assess applicants thoroughly) and each investment must carry the potential of a profit, wth the portfolio as a whole highly likely to do so.
The return must, if successful, pay for the risk of failure and leave an expected profit afterwards. If a player receiving say £300k of zero recourse, zero interest support doesn't want to find himself seeing £1.5m of his earnings when he makes top 4 going back to his investor, then find another backer. Good luck wth that effor, this would be he best deal in town!

Think of this as a normal business investment, nothing more, nothing less, and you'll see it's perfectly reasonable.

Of course you'd need to offer a quality backing, and in my view the best bet would be imply to fund the player through an overseas based top lass system rather than trying to create one here. That's just more diversion of funds from MY prime objective of expanded participation.

Didn't the loan Djokovic's parents took out have a 'career's earning' clause in it?

I found the 2007 BBC report giving Paul Annacones expectations for 2012 (the Olympic Year): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6697963.stm

I didn't know about that lk.

My business philosophy is strongly based on survival of the fittest. I despise state support for industry, for instance, even including subsidies for training. I believe the best firms will invest in training their people for commercial value (which means the training will be well focussed, not woolly, and directed towards good bets) and the bad ones will skimp. So let them fail, be beaten by the better ones, who then go on to create better jobs, more profit and better deals for consumers. Every time the State steps in it distorts the market and preserves bad business, which leads to decline.

It's the same with the LTA. They fund people who haven't made the same personal commitment Djokovic made and - surprise, surprise - they are failures.

The giving money back thing would essentially be a Daily Mail reading howler appeasement PR exercise.

The money that is brought back is pretty negligible if you think about it.

Incidentally, I do believe people are vastly overestimating the amount of funding players are getting. The highest level of direct funding a player can receive in a year is £6000.

Yes, the direct funding of players seems to be pretty much negligible, I suppose it is all the "in lieu" support they might be receiving.

BB,

I think socal posted a link about an article about Djokovic and the loan the parents took out for his development. I can't find the bloody thing. I am sure it had a career earnings clause. Was a good read.

djlovesyou wrote:The giving money back thing would essentially be a Daily Mail reading howler appeasement PR exercise.

Ridiculous, this isn't about any form of outrage to reclaim money, it's about creating the incentive to invest smart and detach the LTA from absurd elite programmes certain to fail.

Nore Staat wrote:Yes, the direct funding of players seems to be pretty much negligible, I suppose it is all the "in lieu" support they might be receiving.

It is indeed the "in leu". What was the value of support given to Andy Murray when thy threw him a free trainer?

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Yes, the direct funding of players seems to be pretty much negligible, I suppose it is all the "in lieu" support they might be receiving.

It is indeed the "in leu". What was the value of support given to Andy Murray when thy threw him a free trainer?

Brad Gillbert got £1 million/year. The LTA had to honour the contract even when Murray ditched him... This was at a time when Murray could afford to pay for his own coach.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Yes, the direct funding of players seems to be pretty much negligible, I suppose it is all the "in lieu" support they might be receiving.

It is indeed the "in leu". What was the value of support given to Andy Murray when thy threw him a free trainer?

Brad Gillbert got £1 million/year. The LTA had to honour the contract even when Murray ditched him... This was at a time when Murray could afford to pay for his own coach.

Indeed. It was absurd to throw money at Murray. Many facilities to expand participation could have been created for that and Murray could afford his own coach from winnings and sponsorship.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Yes, the direct funding of players seems to be pretty much negligible, I suppose it is all the "in lieu" support they might be receiving.

It is indeed the "in leu". What was the value of support given to Andy Murray when thy threw him a free trainer?

Brad Gillbert got £1 million/year. The LTA had to honour the contract even when Murray ditched him... This was at a time when Murray could afford to pay for his own coach.

Essentially Murray drummed up enough attention from the Sun in 2005 that he managed to have Mark Petchy on board.

Brad Gilbert's contract with the LTA was to help with upcoming players which we only had the one.

When Murray disposed of Gilbert's services, he had the luxury of coaching Bogdanovic. Gilbert wisely left and saved the LTA money on paying him off.

Draper is to thank for the inflated contracts thrown at Gilbert, Martens, Annacone. A trend that is the culture of many British sporting associations of today I am afraid.