LTA have funding cut owing to a fall in participation numbers

First topic message reminder :

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

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Essentially Murray drummed up enough attention from the Sun in 2005 that he managed to have Mark Petchy on board.

Sounds like sabotage to me.

legendkillerV2 wrote:Brad Gilbert's contract with the LTA was to help with upcoming players which we only had the one.

And that's where their stupid thinking kicks in..

legendkillerV2 wrote: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.

And there's the result of the bad thinking. Will they learn? Not while the ego trip of trying to produce a Wimbeon champion persists.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Essentially Murray drummed up enough attention from the Sun in 2005 that he managed to have Mark Petchy on board.

Sounds like sabotage to me.

legendkillerV2 wrote:Brad Gilbert's contract with the LTA was to help with upcoming players which we only had the one.

And that's where their stupid thinking kicks in..

legendkillerV2 wrote: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.

And there's the result of the bad thinking. Will they learn? Not while the ego trip of trying to produce a Wimbeon champion persists.

They will never learn.

They fall for the lure of coaches who have coached Slam champions, as you put it Wimbledon champions and believe that these coaches can turn the same fortune and wisdom to younger players. Doesn't work that way. Gilbert and Annacone worked with established players. Not youngsters who have become somewhere near a promising professional.

Draper should be sacked for that alone.

But why should Murray have to pay that money back? Essentially, he wouldn't have agreed to it if that was the case.

Murray aside, all these other players are not being given coaches that are being paid that much per year. This isn't even a funding issue, this is more ploughing money into Murray in order to win a slam. It's not really relevant when discussing general LTA funding.

At what exposure level to these up and coming players have to start paying LTA (or bogbrushTA) staff salaries? How much is a physio session worth? How much for bumping into bogbrush in the corridor? How much for a hit with Greg Rusedski?

It just always amuses me when we have 'funding' discussions in a lot of sports, the first figure the 'anti' people always throw out is 100k per year. It sounds big and scary, and gets other people riled up over this massive overspending. It's always a figure that's plucked out of an orifice mind you.

But as a point of principle it makes sense to claw back some money from those who have made it, surely?

I always had a feeling that the Brad Gilbert thing was a sop thrown to Murray to assuage his low opinion of the LTA ("they ruined my brother" etc) so they could legitimately share the glory if Murray actually won something of note...

But they do 'claw back' money from those who have made it.

Murray probably brings more money (and general interest) into tennis in the UK just by doing what he's doing. I don't see why he should have to pay an additional tax just because he's quite good.

Just a bit of redistribution to give the lower echelons a leg up. Anyway it wouldn't be Murray - by the time any change even starts to happen we'll be looking at our next tennis hope ermmmm...

I just don't understand how it should be the good player's responsibility to fund the lower level players.

It's not like it's an issue anyway. The LTA funding system is relatively straightforward and completely objective.

You reach a certain rank at a certain age you get X amount of money. For all the talk of favouritism and parochialism, it doesn't actually get much fairer.

If we wan't to watch more competative tennis funding has to be more evenly spread. That could be funding from a tennis federation but why not from tournaments (via prize money for early rounds and qualifying) If we wan't to watch the same top three or four players continue to give them most of the money.

At the moment it's difficult for players within the top hundred to break even. That's before they can fund all the extras (full time coach, physio or even someone to organise the travel) that makes them able to compete on an equal basis with the top players. It makes breaking into the top levels of the game so difficult no matter how much "talent" a young player may possess.

Maybe it's slightly easier for British players as they are able to recieve a bit of extra funding. Tennis is a tough sport for lots of reasons. If players don't break through I don't believe its always for want of hard work.

IMO the separating off at the top level has got worse (or better depending on your point of view) in the past few years. Early rounds have become less competative and new young players capable of breaking in are looking remarkably scarce.

This article is about the fall in participation numbers though and that is really sad. Is it that parents see tennis as a career choice (and a difficult one at that) rather than a fun social activity that can be done at any age. It should always be a fun activity first. Of course for it to capture interest it needs good organisation something that is often lacking at the moment. Good organisation at grass roots level could as a bye product encourage a few to take it more seriously. But only very very rarely does it become a career.

So you're agreeing with Federer and not Nadal on this issue hawkeye?

Nadal wants more money and more benefits for the top players, whilst Federer wants things to be spread a little more evenly.

This has little to do with LTA funding, as this is more support at a developmental stage. I.e. through juniors and lower echelons of the pro-rankings (i.e. 200-1500) .

I've not seen what either have to say about the distibution of prize money and benefits. Do you have a link?

Of course I can make up my mind without checking to see what Roger and Rafa think!

Someone doesn't get it.

I am all for contracts and agreements. Murray can't be expected to repay a cent as he never entered into the "support" agreement with that in mind. The people with resources should extract value from its disbursement.
The"support" was absurd, but not his fault.

If I was in charge I'd run a support system where the player and I would agree a contract of investment in the players future, if I thought he was a sound investment and if he wanted it. If either party didn't find it attractive it wouldn't happen.

Nah, I get it.

It just has zero practical value in terms of developing tennis players. That's what we're talking about isn't it?

The only real benefit besides raking in cash from players hard earned winnings, is to appease howlers who get all hot and bothered over 'hand-outs' from 'tax payer's money'.

I think you've got yourself all confused about the thread. That happens when you write before reading.

The point Hawkeye and I made is that it ISN'T necessarily all about developing tennis players, it can be about participation. But then you've got your preconceptions fitted snugly on and it's stopping you understanding the arguments.

I'd try to explain it again but you obviously don't understand concepts of contract, investment and return and I can't be bothered to explain it yet again.

How does 'entering into a contract' with elite players help overall participation?

Bearing in mind that the LTA is given money from AEGON specifically for elite funding, and the money from Sport England is for grass-roots. So any money given as elite player funding is not taken from a pot that could be used to help grass-roots.

I understand the concepts perfectly - it's just the model has zero practical value (see, I'm repeating myself - can you read? etc etc).

I just find the idea of entering into these 'contracts' with a number of players in the vain hope that one of them becomes a Federer, and therefore the contract can be exploited in order to help fund grass roots tennis in this country. I reckon a player could easily get out of it with a good lawyer, I can't imagine anything like this could be watertight.

[quote]I just find the idea of entering into these 'contracts' with a number of players in the vain hope that one of them becomes a Federer, and therefore the contract can be exploited in order to help fund grass roots tennis in this country. I reckon a player could easily get out of it with a good lawyer, I can't imagine anything like this could be watertight.[/quote]

They could

Retire

djlovesyou wrote:How does 'entering into a contract' with elite players help overall participation?

Bearing in mind that the LTA is given money from AEGON specifically for elite funding, and the money from Sport England is for grass-roots. So any money given as elite player funding is not taken from a pot that could be used to help grass-roots.

I understand the concepts perfectly - it's just the model has zero practical value (see, I'm repeating myself - can you read? etc etc).

I just find the idea of entering into these 'contracts' with a number of players in the vain hope that one of them becomes a Federer, and therefore the contract can be exploited in order to help fund grass roots tennis in this country. I reckon a player could easily get out of it with a good lawyer, I can't imagine anything like this could be watertight.

Law of Contract

Http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-elements.html

Are you suggesting that no contract in history has ever been wriggled out of by finding technicalities or loopholes, particularly by those with significant financial resources?

It'll be difficult to uphold, particularly in the sense that the player would have been a child (perhaps even as young as 10 or 11) when this agreement was decided on. What if they decide at say 18 that they don't want to do it anymore? Do they still have to pay their 2% or whatever for the rest of their career?

Of course it has. Thats down to making sure its clear and enforceable. You're right of course that a contract can't be entered into unless the person is legally responsible, or their guardian is, but all that means is that The terms of the support would have to be structured accordingly (including a lien on assets of the guardian for instance).

If no security can be found for the investment then only a fool makes it.

Personally I don't care if they sign or not. The money would be going to participation anyway if I were in charge. Who actually cares what the nationality of a champion is?

I would doubt that AEGON would be interested in giving their money (which is for elite funding and nothing else) if it was part of some scheme to screw kids out of future earnings. You might have to find another sponsor.

If you were head of the LTA, surely part of your remit would be to improve standard of tennis in this country. I'm not sure you should go with the 'who cares what the nationality of a champion is' thing in your interview.

No, because the interviewees would be as deluded about what constitutes the health of the game as most.

In fact, by directing all income to participation I'd have more chance of making a British champion in 25 years than with this policy, but that's incidental to my main concern to have lots of people enjoying this wonderful game. Oh, I'd chat with AEGON and get them to change their minds on direction of funding, no problem.

And its not screwing, it's investing, and the person paying wouldn't be a kid, they'd be a top tennis player. But never mind, that sounds like it might get you howling about robbing children, like a Daily Mail reader.

Its just a business transaction, nothing to get emotional about.

But they'd be kids when they sign the money away. And they'd have to sign because otherwise they would have little or no option of funding and support if they don't get any NGB help. Have you any idea how difficult it is for any young sportsperson to get even the minimum of private sponsorship in this day and age? It really isn't like it used to be.

So you have these kids (and families) over a barrel.

All sports have systems where youngsters get supported financially and otherwise, one way or another. None of them involve a clause that obligates them to help fund the grass roots of the sport through their own earnings later on in their career.

Wonder why?

As for the increasing participation thing. You could have a bazillion pounds to spend on that, but you still haven't given any indication how you're actually going to increase the numbers.

In most sports it's the private companies that will beefit from the players success who provide the support for high standard young players (football clubs, cricket counties). Why endorse a system of charity for tennis that will inevitably misdirect the money?

On participation, great big fat generous grants to build courts of good standard with a solid maintenance programme. Equipment access, like day loan/hire on location. Basically, so people can play the game without laying out a fortune.

Things may very well look even worse for British Men’s tennis soon as just over two-thirds of James Ward’s ranking points (238 out of 346) will drop off during the grass season to August period.

I get the feeling that he was on a bit of a roll last season so potentially he could drop to about 250-300 maybe even lower

Ward might be about to discover what Boggo found out before him. Getting into the top 100 (and never mind staying there) ain't that easy.

If James turns out to be simply quite good only the grass then sorry he's got little chance given the sparce number of grass court events.

bogbrush wrote:In most sports it's the private companies that will beefit from the players success who provide the support for high standard young players (football clubs, cricket counties). Why endorse a system of charity for tennis that will inevitably misdirect the money?

On participation, great big fat generous grants to build courts of good standard with a solid maintenance programme. Equipment access, like day loan/hire on location. Basically, so people can play the game without laying out a fortune.

But tennis players are not in teams and there a no things like football teams or cricket counties that will benefit directly from their performance.

It's the same the world over in individual sports - particularly in this country as we have so many to choose from. If you want success, you need direct NGB support.

You can have as much mass participation as possible - if you don't provide a good pathway and support for the talented kids, it's all in vain anyway.

djlovesyou wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In most sports it's the private companies that will beefit from the players success who provide the support for high standard young players (football clubs, cricket counties). Why endorse a system of charity for tennis that will inevitably misdirect the money?

On participation, great big fat generous grants to build courts of good standard with a solid maintenance programme. Equipment access, like day loan/hire on location. Basically, so people can play the game without laying out a fortune.

But tennis players are not in teams and there a no things like football teams or cricket counties that will benefit directly from their performance.

It's the same the world over in individual sports - particularly in this country as we have so many to choose from. If you want success, you need direct NGB support.

You can have as much mass participation as possible - if you don't provide a good pathway and support for the talented kids, it's all in vain anyway.

No, participation IS the objective. Mass participation in tennis is wonderful, it's one of the few sports that can bring purpose and value to people throughout their lives and bring generations together in a common, active, interest. What better objective could there be than that?

Who in their right mind really cares about the nationality of a champion? What is best - 50,000 kids playing tennis, joining clubs with older people, breaking down generational barriers, who wouldnt have done so otherwise, or a possibility of a British Wimbledon champ? No contest in my book.

bogbrush wrote:

No, participation IS the objective. Mass participation in tennis is wonderful, it's one of the few sports that can bring purpose and value to people throughout their lives and bring generations together in a common, active, interest. What better objective could there be than that?

Who in their right mind really cares about the nationality of a champion? What is best - 50,000 kids playing tennis, joining clubs with older people, breaking down generational barriers, who wouldnt have done so otherwise, or a possibility of a British Wimbledon champ? No contest in my book.

In all fairness,, mass participation and success are the objectives of a NGB. In my experience, if you get one, you improve the chances of getting the other. Often it's the stars and the success that come before the major interest from kids.

I don't understand why you think that tennis is somehow special. 'purpose and value throughout their lives'? How is this different from golf, cycling, athletics or football?

You have to understand that the LTA are in the business of (at least trying) to create winners. I fully appreciate that you are too good a person to be bothered about whether there's a British Wimbledon champion or not, but you're not in the real world if you don't think that this is a very important goal for the LTA.

It's only important if by make it so. All they need is to be rational (not good) and they can set objectives that are (i) valuable and (ii) attainable. I might even say that all they need to do is join the real world, where efforts to breed Britsh champions are doomed to failure and participation is crap.

Tennis is different from those sports. It can be played meaningfully to a late age (unlike football or athletics), is highly social during participation (unlike golf or cycling). It is an ideal participant sport for all ages and standards and fosters socialisation across a broad spectrum of people. All that's needed is to se it easy to join in.

Enter my LTA!

OK some examples are in order here.

Murray took up tennis because I assume his mother introduced him to it at an early age. The fact that she was a coach obviously helped but given the lack of competition in Scotland she had to take both her kids down to the North West regularly throughout the tennis season. Not many parents would have made that kind of sacrifice although to be fair I believe her husband did a lot of the away trips (but that's beside point). Andy was also a pretty talented footballer it appears but tennis won to the extent he even spent a couple of years in Spain for his tennis development. You can say he made it despite the lack of an infrastructure where he lived but sometimes that's just another obstacle talent and burning ambition can overcome.

Boggo , on the other hand (and let's be reasonable here - he was a good talent) discovered tennis at a relatively late age ((10-11) by being introduced by a friend to his local club. So he really is an LTA product and the kind of player who can be produced if enough kids are encouraged to take up the sport. The fact that he went his own way may be his rebellious side or the fact he felt let down by the LTA take your pick.

Golding, like Murray, has a mother who coaches tennis but he seems a half way house between the two. He's dipped in and out of LTA schemes and spent several periods of time abroad (two to three months at a time).

Both Murray and Golding it could therefore be argued would have made it without any input from the LTA whilst Boggo , like may kids who are sports mad, needed identifying and then a lot of guidance from his local club. For every Murray or Golding then there are plenty of undiscovered potential champions out there who need discovering. That takes a proper structure in pace and the right levels of support and both cost money.

Being a top 50 junior requires a significant financial outlay (for anyone in the world). Especially given the lack of prizemoney at junior events.

Guys like Golding benefitted from a number of LTA trips to compete in the various junior 'swings' around the world in order to get his ranking and compete at the highest level that junior tennis could offer.

I think this sort of support is invaluable for young players.

Yes, and completely useless to the rest of the population.

Golding, ffs.

Does it matter. The money comes from a private company with the specific remit to fund young players to help with the development of their tennis careers.

Your dream of not bothering with proper coaching and competition and putting all the money into hit and giggle social clubs for all the family is delightful but I don't think that will sit very well with the people who see tennis as a sport.

You're not really a sport fan to be fair.