England Team Funding.

Who should fund England Teams when Fishing Competitions?

  • The Angling Trust as Governing Body.

    Votes: 34 43.6%
  • The Angling Trade Association.

    Votes: 14 17.9%
  • Self Funded by the competing Anglers.

    Votes: 16 20.5%
  • All Anglers via a Levy on the Rod License.

    Votes: 5 6.4%
  • Don't care, not interested in competitive fishing.

    Votes: 9 11.5%

  • Total voters
    78

Peter

'Mugger'
Staff member
Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
20,008
In view of the recent controversy caused by Rob Hughes's article in the Angling Times regarding the funding of England Angling Teams what are your thoughts on how funding, if any should be raised.
 

PAB

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2018
Messages
1,121
Yet another reason for some not to buy a licence at all
 

Arry

Aitch, Cantankerous old gimmer with "Views"
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
5,957
Maybe the results of the poll could be sent to the Angling Times/Mail as an indicator of the strength of feeling against the suggestion that Anglers fund teams for World Champs... either get the trade involved and the Angling Trust... or apply for lottery funding either way its not a responsibility of the ordinary angler to fund our teams
 

mickthechippy

space cadet
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
13,342
Maybe the results of the poll could be sent to the Angling Times/Mail as an indicator of the strength of feeling against the suggestion that Anglers fund teams for World Champs... either get the trade involved and the Angling Trust... or apply for lottery funding either way its not a responsibility of the ordinary angler to fund our teams
pretty sure this site is monitored by those, there has been many times when a subject has been discussed within these pages, that miracuously then turns up in press releases or as an item printed in the angling press or on other product websites

after all, it is the carlsberg of angling websites
 

Sam Vimes

Regular member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
5,136
I don't really care how they fund them. However, if the money is levied on rod licences I'll be bloody angry. Unless they manage to do it as an isolated revenue stream, I'll be equally angry if the AT fund it. Either way, it will be ordinary anglers that are funding it, and why the bloody hell should they?

While we are on, they are really extracting the urine with all the little match fishing sub-categories that exist now. Which genius came up with having a national match team and also having separate feeder and float teams? That's before you get on to the juniors, seniors, disabled and ladies teams. Then there are the carp matches and their various teams.

No doubt some might think I'm anti-match fishing, but I'm really not. I'm just against ordinary anglers being bled dry by parasites. There are enough of them in angling as it is.
 

Arry

Aitch, Cantankerous old gimmer with "Views"
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
5,957
Okay..
Lets start up an old gimmers team and get funding from the AT... fair aint it...?
 

johng19

me@home.com
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
5,681
I think volentry donation on the licence might raise some money, not all will donate but think I would if it where only a pound. I get my licence by standing order would not mind paying an pound extra.
As it is you have to pay for the licence agree or not, I am one that does not agree. So one mor pound would not make much diffrenc to me.

I voted angling trade, but think it should be between trade and angling trust. To raise part together.
 

gingert76

Facts, Stats & Evidence!
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,562
i have voted for anglers via a levy BUT as long as the levy is given to the AT and they manage the finances themselves
 

lliopp

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
902
Don't care who or what, but not me. And I am interested in competition fishing, my own.
I will look at the results of these competitions if I see them, but the rules are completely different, the fish can be alien to these shores and it would seem to be a very closed shop.
 

mike fox

'Just Me and the Fish'
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
1,884
I voted self funding. The reason being they stand a much greater chance of being awarded grants of higher values than the AT could ever provide. The difficulty for those individuals is knowing where to look and then how to word the applications to be accepted which is harder. Once you get 1 interested fund provider, it becomes much easier.
 

Neil ofthe nene

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
21,350
Surely there is an option missing and that is that the funding should come from something like Sport England or UK Sport. Both distribute Government and Lottery funds. UK Sport fund Olympic sports only. Sport England fund other sports. It is surely scandalous that, for example, our disabled coarse angling team was funded by a single individual benefactor last year and not from a body promoting sport, disability inclusivity or similar.

That funding should be channelled through the Angling Trust but the source of the funds should be from a wider base than just anglers. How are other non-Olympic spots funded at international level?
 

chris1967

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
696
I’ve fished open matches for as long as care to remember. Used to read angling times regularly but I could not tell you one single result of the England national team ever .
Does it have an impact on me fishing. . No
Does it impact me fishing opens . No
Does anyone really care , I would suspect the majority not
Narrow minded maybe , but just not of interested in National rigmaroll
 

Neil ofthe nene

Regular member
Site Supporter
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
21,350
I don't really care how they fund them. However, if the money is levied on rod licences I'll be bloody angry. Unless they manage to do it as an isolated revenue stream, I'll be equally angry if the AT fund it. Either way, it will be ordinary anglers that are funding it, and why the bloody hell should they?

While we are on, they are really extracting the urine with all the little match fishing sub-categories that exist now. Which genius came up with having a national match team and also having separate feeder and float teams? That's before you get on to the juniors, seniors, disabled and ladies teams. Then there are the carp matches and their various teams.

No doubt some might think I'm anti-match fishing, but I'm really not. I'm just against ordinary anglers being bled dry by parasites. There are enough of them in angling as it is.
Do you ever wonder who supplies the money to pay elite athletes a grant so they don't have to work for a living? You do. So why should we not fund anglers in the same way?

And a pound a year, is hardly bleeding anyone dry.

As for the separate float and feeder teams I think you will find that was a FIPS decision. The main coarse angling World Championships bans legering in any form. So it made sense to introduce a separate feeder World Championships.

You may as well ask why we have athletic events from 100m to marathon. Why not just have one standard length race? Why throw four different projectiles, why not just one?

And I'm not sure MDr Steve Ringer likes being called a parasite.

The way to make any team exclusive is to only allow people capable of self funding to take part. Next thing you would be saying is that this would be unfair and reserve the positions for the rich.

We need those with the best ability representing our sport at international level, not only those who can afford to compete at that level.
 

jasonb

Regular member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
1,030
Do you ever wonder who supplies the money to pay elite athletes a grant so they don't have to work for a living? You do. So why should we not fund anglers in the same way?

And a pound a year, is hardly bleeding anyone dry.

As for the separate float and feeder teams I think you will find that was a FIPS decision. The main coarse angling World Championships bans legering in any form. So it made sense to introduce a separate feeder World Championships.

You may as well ask why we have athletic events from 100m to marathon. Why not just have one standard length race? Why throw four different projectiles, why not just one?

And I'm not sure MDr Steve Ringer likes being called a parasite.

The way to make any team exclusive is to only allow people capable of self funding to take part. Next thing you would be saying is that this would be unfair and reserve the positions for the rich.

We need those with the best ability representing our sport at international level, not only those who can afford to compete at that level.
Fully agree but it should be optional whether to do it....not compulsory
 

Sam Vimes

Regular member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
5,136
Do you ever wonder who supplies the money to pay elite athletes a grant so they don't have to work for a living? You do. So why should we not fund anglers in the same way?

And a pound a year, is hardly bleeding anyone dry.

As for the separate float and feeder teams I think you will find that was a FIPS decision. The main coarse angling World Championships bans legering in any form. So it made sense to introduce a separate feeder World Championships.

You may as well ask why we have athletic events from 100m to marathon. Why not just have one standard length race? Why throw four different projectiles, why not just one?

And I'm not sure MDr Steve Ringer likes being called a parasite.

The way to make any team exclusive is to only allow people capable of self funding to take part. Next thing you would be saying is that this would be unfair and reserve the positions for the rich.

We need those with the best ability representing our sport at international level, not only those who can afford to compete at that level.
A) I know full well who funds elite athletes. However, to a significant extent, I can choose whether or not I do so beyond that given via universal taxation. If angling was an olympic sport, I'd have no problem with it being funded in exactly the same manner. However, it's not and to expect just anglers to fund national team angling is a bit rich. Let them fight it out with everyone else for Sport England and the National Lottery funding.

B) I couldn't care less who made the decisions to have so many disciplines. They should have been told to get stuffed or fund it themselves.

C) I didn't call Steve Ringer, or any of the other competitors, a parasite. I said there were enough parasites in angling already.

D) The world will not stop revolving if we send no anglers to international competitions.

E) It's nice to see someone cares. I can only suggest that you, and others like you, put your hands in your pockets if you think it's important enough. However, please keep your hands out of my pockets. They are only just deep enough to fund my own very local angling, they certainly aren't deep enough to fund anyone else's angling, regardless of how little it might be.
 

robert d

Allways trying to improve
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
2,841
In view of the recent controversy caused by Rob Hughes's article in the Angling Times regarding the funding of England Angling Teams what are your thoughts on how funding, if any should be raised.
How about the lottery money ..many millions spent on opera and other things the general public dont use although I love opera ..just an idea
 

mike fox

'Just Me and the Fish'
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
1,884
Surely there is an option missing and that is that the funding should come from something like Sport England or UK Sport. Both distribute Government and Lottery funds. UK Sport fund Olympic sports only. Sport England fund other sports. It is surely scandalous that, for example, our disabled coarse angling team was funded by a single individual benefactor last year and not from a body promoting sport, disability inclusivity or similar.

That funding should be channelled through the Angling Trust but the source of the funds should be from a wider base than just anglers. How are other non-Olympic spots funded at international level?
Exactly; but they have to apply like everyone else. Evidently they clearly haven't got the gumption to do that, so they try the easy way out and expect anglers to contribute. Its a flipping cheek.
 
Top