From the “Dark Side”
Firstly let me make it clear that I am not “anti” a national organisation. Nor am I taking “cheap shots” at individuals in this response. As far as I am aware most people who hold office in ANZ do so for love not money and give it their all. What I am apposed to is the idea of compulsory membership for the following reasons.
The logic supporting the current argument to compel people join ANZ is to me astounding. It is similar to Mana Club saying that any people who shoot bows and arrows in the Wellington area must join our club to do so because if they do the cost of membership to the Mana Club will reduce (which of course will benefit current members) and we have trained coaches and all that neat stuff. This is of course is a nonsense as you have just said to yourself. The only way we can get people to join our club is to provide them with something which they will believe will be to their benefit, and we do. For example two of us got off our butts and spent around 600 hours with chainsaws etc working on a piece of bush we scrounged to make a field course, with occasional help from others in our club and Kapiti. A very good field course by all accounts and one which is starting to attract people who would not have joined a target archery club, to Mana. Our membership will go up and everyone will benefit and we have not had to tell anyone the value of joining.
ANZ trains coaches. Sorry folks, big deal. For those who just want to have fun shooting bows and arrows having qualified coaches is nice but not essential. And as an aside Mana Club paid for its first coaches to get their ticket punched, not ANZ. So where is the gain for the archer joining ANZ? Not here sorry.
ANZ runs the two National Tournaments. Nonsense! Clubs or collectives of clubs run tournaments, ANZ just turns up and presents the medals. Judges excepted here.
ANZ is FITA’s agent in New Zealand. Yep that is true and so if you want, at club level, to run a Major Tournament you have to pay obeisance to ANZ and FITA and not only do you have to tug your forelock for the privilege, you also have to open your wallet to get the “licence”. All that so you can offer FITA awards to the archers. 1300 points shot within the “rules” set by FITA is still only worth 1300 points. ANZ could have its own rules (based in FITA’s of course but which are consistent, easy to read and understand, and sensible) to reward that score and it should mean the same thing. Clubs of course could do the same without ANZ or FITA.
ANZ supplies Judges so that you can claim these great scores as “legitimate”. Yep they do, well sort of. Actually Clubs provide the willing bodies by way of nomination and from that point ANZ takes over and provides them with training by way of emailed case studies set out by that “fiend” Les Jones, two shirts (occasionally), and a hat (sometimes). The individual has to provide their own gear from 100 metre tapes, to bow scales, to stop watches, to jackets etc etc. The total cost of this is around $400 and then they get the privilege of also having to pay ANZ to be a member so they can then judge, and pay to get to and from tournaments and if they are really lucky pay their own accommodation while they are there?
ANZ supports top athletes and SPARC recognises that. You know the “this is an Olympic Sport after all” argument (well some of us are, compounders sorry you are out of luck which means around half of the membership miss out on that opportunity as well). Now we start getting to the crux of the matter. To be a top athlete you have to stand on the shoulders of a lot of other athletes who are not as good as you. To get there takes money and time which most of us have in scarce abundance. So we look to SPARC to give us some money so the top 1% of archers can get their personal dream realised. This has been done for years and where are our top athletes? How many do we have going to Beijing? Sorry folks I am not a stepping stone for your success (or failure). You want to get there do it yourself and don’t try to use compulsory membership as a lever to get more money in the coffer to make that happen for you.
So what does ANZ currently spend our subs on? When I thought about this my initial response was “damned if I know”. Given that I thought I better find out and what better way of doing this than to get a copy of the last financial report presented this year at the AGM.
Last year ANZ got $19,884 dollars from members according to that statement. It also got $20,577 from the 2007 Nationals and paid out $12,374 in costs. Nice little profit there, no wonder the entry fees where so high. It paid out $3,912 for International Tournament Fees for some archers who and what for remains a mystery? It paid out $5,686 for Rents – Venue Hire (what and where?), and $3,884 for General Expenses (which are?). So what was it that people said was the advantage of joining?
• Training judges. According to the accounts nothing was spent last year on that.
• Training coaches. Nothing last year was spent on that.
• FITA, yes they spent $692 last year on fees for that.
• Running Nationals. Yep they apparently did that in 2007 and made a tidy profit from your entry fees of $8,203. Point to note here that this is a very different set of figures to the ones I was given to try and plan the 2008 Nationals from.
• Indoors Nationals. Yep they spent $406 on that
Work this one out folks. ANZ gets an income of $19,884 for what I can work out to be around 500 members. They make around a $90 profit on each archer that shot in the 2007 Nationals, and spend a total of $406 per annum on all of the things that have been put forward as being good reasons to join ANZ. They have spent:
• Nothing on training coaches
• Nothing on training judges
• Nothing on developing Olympic prospects
• Nothing on JAMA; (Junior Archers)
• $406 on the Indoor Nationals; and they
• Made a profit on running the Outdoor Nationals (at the member’s expense).
That expenditure back to members works out to 0.8 cents per member, so tell me again what I am going to pay ANZ $70 this year for? I know that when I pay Mana Club $60 (unless they put it up) I will get a clubhouse, clout field, target field, field course, awards programme, coaching, and an infrastructure which invests all of its income back into its members.
Take the idea of compulsory membership to its logical conclusion. It becomes a rule of ANZ that all Clubs must affiliate their members. Mana decides that this is in conflict with its Deed of Incorporation and says no. What can ANZ do? Not one thing that would make sense or make a difference in my opinion. So come along people spend the effort you are spending on trying to justify compulsory membership on making membership of ANZ attractive to club level archers and we will all win.
Points of interest and comments.
There is no denying Archery New Zealand is actively trying to make all clubs and in fact everyone affiliate to them to ensure their dictatorship.
Archery New Zealand is actively even trying to seduce and force schools to affiliate to them which is an absolute sham as Archery New Zealand actively discriminates against the only Archery in school programme in New Zealand simply because of the equipment they use and is a prime example of Archery New Zealand mentality and lack of foresight.
It is suggested that Archery New Zealand may well be trying to enforce authority and dictatorship all over New Zealand and any club school or individual participating in Archery must pay homage and fees to them and is as simply a money generating scheme.
Archery New Zealand actively discriminates against Compound archers and does not listen to the majority of archers in New Zealand who are actually compound shooters and again is a prime example of Archery New Zealand mentality.
Simply, Archers, Schools and Clubs do not need compulsory Archery New Zealand membership fees forced against them and as the statistics shown below, Archery New Zealand’s old thinking mentality has forced its membership numbers down and most of those who do remain members, most are not willing, have no alternative or nothing nice to say about Archery New Zealand but unfortunately their comments are only brandied about during social gatherings because of sanctioning or demotion.
It is interesting once someone starts a topic about the BS from Archery New Zealand then everyone else hearing the comments also expresses their discontent with Archery New Zealand so that’s saying something in itself!
1985/86 - 922 members
1986/87 - 596
1987/88 - 633
1988/89 - 0
1989/90 - 671
1990/91 - 745
1991/92 - 745
1992/93 - 1084
1993/94 - 514
1994/95 - 508
1995/96 - 375
1996/97 - 360
1997/98 - 349
1998/99 - 349
1999/00 - 404
2000/01 - 287
2001/02 - 293
2002/03 – 304
During my research I have found reference to SPARC supporting Archery New Zealand and their events simply because it was a National body but I find it very hard to work out how this is possible especially when Archery New Zealand only represents a very small proportion of actual archers and the fact that Archery New Zealand discriminates against certain disciplines of archery and omits other willing and eligible archers from competing within the sport.
This concept of discrimination and omission has caused fractions and disharmony within the sport for some time now.
Archery Statistics indicate in 1985 there were 922 affiliated members to Archery New Zealand .
In 2003 there were only 304 affiliated members and not all of these members are willing members!
Research has indicated there are over 45 individual archery clubs throughout New Zealand but only 25 are recognised by Archery New Zealand.
Research has also shown there are other archers such as the NZ Bow hunting society which have over 300 members and the (NZFAA), NZ field Archery Association to which have indicated they have over 450 members which all are not recognised by our so called NSO Archery New Zealand!
Currently Archery New Zealand dose not offer what is needed in the sport nor dose it want to change its mentality by adapting to the changing needs.
A valid and serious question needs to be asked, Is it possible to challenge Archery New Zealand and their monopoly position in regards to the dictatorship they hold as Archery New Zealand simply do not recognise or represent the majority of archers in New Zealand.
Briefly, Archery New Zealand seeks funding from varying sources under the impression that it will be in the interest of the sport and all archers, but this funding is given to only a small minority of clubs or only a selected few archers as Archery New Zealand does not recognise all archery clubs or top archers for varying reasons or red tape which is disappointing to say the least, hence the absolute necessity for a major change.
I find it offensive that a national sporting body such as Archery New Zealand can claim they represent the majority or benefit all when in fact they do not as all events or tournaments associated with Archery New Zealand only acknowledge a small minority of the clubs and actively prohibit some archers from entering events along with not supporting certain disciplines within archery.
Furthermore, Archery New Zealand claims in their funding applications they need funding for varying aspects of the sport but when funds are found, and as documentation supports, Archery New Zealand seems more interested in revenue gathering as they do not spend it on the indicated needs or for the future of the sport such as the JAMA which are the junior archers and would help explain the decline in membership or those actually taking up the sport.
The above comments are in connection with SPARC funding which is a major sponsor and is governed by the Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act 2002.
“It is critical that all recreation and sport strategies and structures fully recognise best contemporary practice and adapt to the changing lifestyles of New Zealanders.”
SPARC's functions are set out in section 8 of the Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act 2002 and in a general sense SPARC has been charged with improving the wellbeing of New Zealanders through sport and physical recreation and has the backing of a Ministerial Taskforce which enables SPARC to be capable of providing clear direction in shaping sport and recreation policies, providing increased levels of funding, and leading change in sport and physical recreation, so I wonder if SPARC would entertain funding an NSO such as Archery New Zealand who are misrepresenting themselves and who is harming the sport by not listening to its members as the statistics clearly show.
In regards to other providers of funding that Archery New Zealand applies to, I wonder if they would be interested in funding Archery New Zealand once they know the truth about Archery New Zealand and their false misrepresentations.
In 2009 there was a proposed event that would have benefited all archers in New Zealand where the proposed event was intending to bring all archers of all classes, disciplines and specifically the young and physically challenged, together for one event, twice a year, in one location and was to be open to any individual in New Zealand and surrounding areas, whether they are affiliated or not which will be another first ever here in New Zealand.
The planned event was including a Target, Field and Clout shoot which was to be run simultaneously over a two day weekend at one venue which will be another first ever here in New Zealand.
Apart from hosting this event in one location, the event was intending to offer some of the old favourites back into the sport of archery by offering Annual trophies and possible prizes and money for the winners along with a proposed 6 month indemnity insurance for all competitors which will also be another first here in New Zealand.
Unlike the Archery New Zealand events the proposed event would only cost a pittance to enter and would not discriminate against a discipline or an archer who is not affiliated to any particular club or area, therefore the proposed event would benefit all archers and clubs, thus would give a more accurate account of those actually partaking in the sport of archery within New Zealand making this event truly in the interest of the sport of archery.
This event was briefly discussed among a select few but when comments was received from a certain elite squad coach that a non affiliated archer have no right to compete against an affiliated archer and that is what he was preaching to everyone, the proposed event planning was dropped.
Archery New Zealand Secretary was contacted by a large council asset manager regarding recommendations for safety for a new Archery club being formed.
The Secretary wrote back and stated she did not think another club was needed.
Firstly, The query related to safety recommendation which the asset manager received No reply.
Secondly, the secretary on behalf of Archery New Zealand should not have any right to try and dictate or even comment on how many clubs there should be.
Thirdly, This is another example of how Archery New Zealand operates and shows Archery New Zealand is out of contact with archers in New Zealand and is trying to enforce their beliefs and dictate to others.
2008 – 2009.
Cancelled major events and lack of judges.
It is hard enough to organise a major event in your region but when three Major events are cancelled simply due to Archery New Zealand not supplying judges which is part of their obligation to its members, this is surely a Major concern and the question needs to be asked, why do we pay homage and compulsory fees to Archery New Zealand?
In regards to Judges.
I was personally present when a so called senior judge was putting down and rubbishing Archery New Zealand so if a judge shows disharmony what does this indicate?
I can’t think of any positive about Archery New Zealand as individual clubs offers and does more for its members.
One thing I will add, Archery New Zealand must know something is not right as they have just conducted a so called survey asking its members what’s wrong with Archery New Zealand but this survey should have been asking all archers as those who don’t belong to Archery New Zealand they have their valid reasons.