THE MISSING LEGACY PLAN AND THE DISAPPEARING LEISURE FACILITIES

11 09 2012

So, that was it. Fantastic wasn’t it? The greatest summer British sport has ever known. As the final echoes of the ‘Our Greatest Team’ parade fade away and summer turns to autumn the memory of those superb performances, the excellent organisation, the wonderful fans and the great Games Makers is still fresh in the memory.

But what of the sports participation legacy? What of the promise that secured the Games seven years ago? As politicians continue to ride the Olympic/Paralympic success bandwagon and talk up legacy; leisure facilities across the country are closing down and cutting their hours.

Regular readers of this blog will know I am a critic of the policy of Initiativeitis favoured by governments present and past and that I question the absence of an integrated national Strategy for the Development of Sport which fully services the sports development continuum.

Within such a strategy, a key component will undoubtedly be the provision of places where people can discover, learn, play, enjoy and excel at sport; the facilities.

The danger of not maintaining and improving leisure facilities, including access to them, was highlighted by former NBA basketball star John Amaechi. In June last year, Amaechi appeared on a Sky Sports News Special Report on Legacy and, talking of the threat of facility closures, said:

“…what’s going to happen here at the Olympics could be worse even than just people not participating afterwards, it could be that you excite young people to play, they go out into their communities to look for where to play and they come here and they realise it’s grassed over, it is no longer a facility where they can get the right kind of coaching and the right kind of development. That would be a true tragedy.”

And yet, that is what is happening. Last week the BBC reported that more than a third of UK councils have cut or reduced public sports facilities in the last three years.

It is not as if Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson is not aware of the problem. In 2009, while Shadow Minister for Sport, he expressed his concern that, “to deliver the planned (sic) sport legacy would require all areas of the country to have both access to facilities and sporting infrastructure” The then Shadow Minister’s concern was that “Johnny – in Burnley, Leeds or Glasgow – can get past first base when he feels inspired by Beccy Addlington at London 2012.”

The threat was (and is) real. In 2009 63 public swimming pools closed and only 28 opened and a report suggested that, without intervention, by 2014 levels of public sector provision could regress to those last seen in the 1960s. Sport England (2003) had reported that simply sustaining the (then) current level of public sector sports facilities would require £110m per annum. The current Government’s flawed ‘Places People Play’ collection of initiatives provides for £50m of National Lottery money for community sports clubs to improve their facilities plus another £30m for investment in Games inspired ‘iconic’ regional facilities. It is woefully inadequate.

There is an assumption that any slack will be picked up by local authorities. However, unlike many of our European neighbours, other than playing fields, sports facilities are afforded no statutory protection in this country. Hence, when times are tight and councils need to find savings, public sports facilities will always be on the list of places where those savings can be made.

The initiatives continue to come from government but without a properly thought out, fully integrated strategy for the development of sport which takes in the full sports development continuum, the facilities where they assume many of these initiatives will play out are under threat.

It is worth repeating what last week’s BBC report stated; more than a third of UK councils have cut or reduced public sports facilities in the last three years.

For Legacy to become tangible and long-lasting sport must be given statutory protection as part of a comprehensive strategy. Sports facilities, community clubs and sports development units must be protected and with that protection, have access to adequate funding.

These are hard times and you might ask where the extra money will come from? The fact is that extra money is unlikely to be required; the savings made by planning strategy properly rather than randomly should be more than adequate. Proper, integrated strategy will always be more economical, more efficient and more effective than the deploying of random tactics (which is what Initiativeitis is).

Is this new knowledge? No. 2500 years ago the father of strategy Sun Tzu stated; “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

It is time for politicians of all parties to stop playing and to start getting serious. It is time they took their own promise of Legacy seriously and planned for it properly. It is the very least they owe us after promising it to the world on our behalf and, in straightened times, they also owe it to us to invest what money we do have far more wisely.

(Additional References: Hughes, K (2012) Sport Mega-Events and a Legacy of Increased Sport Participation: An Olympic Legacy or an Olympic Dream?)

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, September 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 9 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, Management, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

BLAME THE DATA AND REMOVE THE GOALPOSTS

5 05 2012

HOW TO MASK NATIONAL OLYMPIC POLICY FAILINGS!

Guest Blog by Prof. Mike Weed.

I was contemplating a blog revisiting the scandalous lack of proper strategy from government aimed at delivering the physical activity legacy promised to the IOC in Singapore in 2005 when Mike Weed published an excellent new blog on that very topic. Therefore, instead of a new blog from me, with his consent, here is Mike’s blog on the subject; ‘Blame The Data and Move the Goalposts – How to Mask National Olympic Policy Failings!’ (Jim Cowan).

In Singapore in 2005, Lord Coe, the Chair of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, secured the 2012 Games for London with a bid presentation including a promise to inspire a new generation to choose sport.  Yet, as the popular press is fond of reminding us, no previous Games has raised national participation in sport and physical activity. Furthermore, a systematic review in the BMJ in 2010 concluded that “the available evidence is not sufficient to confirm or refute expectations about the health or socio-economic benefits for the host population of previous major multi-sport events”.

No Evidence for INHERENT legacies

However, this is not the full picture.  Whilst it is true that no previous Games has resulted in sustained increases in sport and physical activity participation in national populations, it is also true that no previous Games has attempted to raise population levels of sport and physical activity participation.  Participation data has merely been examined ex-poste to explore whether Olympic and Paralympic Games have affected participation levels.  Consequently, the BMJ review should be interpreted to mean that there is no evidence for an inherent sport and physical activity participation legacy effect, in which benefits occur automatically.

Reasonable Legacy Ambitions?

So what does this mean for London 2012?  Was it reasonable to suggest back in 2005 that a national sport and physical activity participation legacy could be delivered?  In short, yes!  The lack of evidence for national participation legacies following previous Games that had not attempted to deliver such legacies is not an indication that a national sport and physical activity participation legacy could not be leveraged from London 2012.  In fact, a worldwide systematic review of evidence, conducted by the Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR) at Canterbury Christ Church University for the Department of Health, provides evidence that mechanisms associated with Olympic and Paralympic Games have had a positive effect on sport participation where specific initiatives have been put in place to leverage such participation.  However, such initiatives have not been on a large enough scale to affect national levels of sport and physical activity participation, hence the lack of evidence for an inherent effect in the BMJ review.

National Policy Failures

So, armed with this evidence about how sport and physical legacies might be developed, surely good progress must be being made towards delivering a national sport and physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Games?  Well, unfortunately not!  Evidence from Sport England’s Active People Survey shows sport participation in England has increased by an average of only 38,000 a year over the last three years.  The problem is that although evidence suggests London 2012 could have boosted the nation’s sport and physical activity participation given the right strategic approach, national legacy policies have not incorporated this evidence into a coherent national legacy strategy.  Instead, the legacy aspirations of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, like those of Lord Coe, have been pinned on the hope that there will be an inherent inspiration effect from the Games, with England’s Mass Participation Legacy Plan, Places People Play, focusing almost solely on supply: of facilities, of fields, of leaders, and of opportunities.  However, this is not Field of Dreams – there is no evidence to suggest that if you build a sport supply infrastructure, people will come! People will not come because there is no strategy in place to simulate demand.  Consequently, the lack of progress towards a national sport and physical activity participation legacy from London 2012 is a policy failing, in which national legacy strategy has not been informed by the available evidence.

Blaming the Data

Unsurprisingly, a policy failing is not one of the explanations respectively offered by Lord Coe and Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary.  Lord Coe blames the data, believing that the Active People Survey fails to capture sport participation legacy outcomes, and suggesting that it should not be trusted because Sport England, which commissions the survey, has “singularly failed”.  As alternative evidence, Lord Coe suggests “if you speak to [the British Cycling performance director] Dave Brailsford he will tell you he’s got half a million more cyclists than pre-Beijing”.  However, Active People provides official National Statistics, and since 2005 has been conducted by two highly respected market research companies, IpsosMORI and TNS-BMRB. Each year its sample size exceeds 175,000, which provides accuracy to within 0.2%.  The same cannot be said of the anecdotal view of a national performance director, however genuinely-held it may be.

Removing the Goalposts

In contrast to Lord Coe, Jeremy Hunt does not suggest National Statistics are flawed.  Rather he claims an inappropriate legacy target was set by the previous government, which promised to get one million more adults participating in sport by 2012/13.  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has now dropped this target, because Mr Hunt believes a “more meaningful national measure” is required.  However, with less than 2012 hours to go to the Games, a more meaningful national measure has yet to be announced.  Consequently, and somewhat conveniently, by effectively removing the goalposts the DCMS has now ensured that there is no nationally endorsed target against which government policy can be judged to have failed to deliver a national sport and physical activity participation legacy.

© Prof. Mike Weed, May 2012.

Professor Mike Weed, a highly regarded academic, is a Professor of Sport in Society.  He is Director of the Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR) at Canterbury Christ Church University and is Editor of the Journal of Sport & Tourism. Mike’s personal blog can be read at http://profmikeweed.wordpress.com

Except where otherwise stated © Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2010-2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal



Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

THE BANK OF MUM & DAD AND THE FUNDING OF SPORT

8 04 2012

Regular readers of this blog will know that I frequently return to the topic of strategy for the development of sport and the ineptitude of consecutive governments on the subject.

However, as with all aspects of life there are also a number of apparently non-sporting government decisions which will have a significant effect on grass-roots sport and its ability to grow – or even stand still. As any half-way competent strategist will tell you ‘cause and effect’ should always be considered as ‘big picture’ considerations where, unfortunately, government tends to only consider decisions in one area in isolation. In government initiative seemingly always trumps strategy.

In the rush to recognise the value that Lottery funding has brought to sport in this country we sometimes forget that, at the grass-roots, it is not even in the top three of biggest funders. By far the largest financial contributors to sport are the many unpaid volunteers who keep it running. Their contribution is not limited to the obvious travel and time but is often invisible such as the North London coach I spoke to who pays entry fees for the young athletes he looks after because without they would not be able to afford to compete.

Following the volunteers in terms of contribution is the ‘bank of mum and dad’ – a bank that pays those entry fees when it can afford them as well as being kit purchaser/washer, taxi service, funder, sponsor and more.

With VAT seemingly set to remain at 20% for the foreseeable future this is the first area of negative impact on sport. Equipment costs more, facility hire costs more, travel costs more; in fact everything costs more. At the grass-roots end of sport, not an essential item of spending for the vast majority of the population, as the financial pressure builds sport becomes an area where cut backs can be made.

Fuel is an essential commodity but has been far from exempt from not just a single tax but double taxation as the seemingly ever-rising fuel levy adds to the burden of VAT. This stealth tax on small business (which many small sports clubs are) is also taxation on both participation in and the watching of sport. As with VAT, as family budgets are stretched difficult choices have to be made and little Johnny’s badminton lesson will more often than not be seen as less essential than getting to work , paying the bills or putting food on the table. It should be remembered that tax on fuel is a tax on everything reliant on fuel for its production or delivery – pretty much everything else!

Public transport might be an option but buses and trains do not always run according to where sport needs them to run at the times it needs them to and besides, with many families ‘time-poor’ the added time public transport travel can take makes it less likely to be utilised, especially outside of cities like London where it is less plentiful. And for longer trips for sports fans and away team travel the train, already expensive is now having £3.6bn a year of subsidies removed by the government.

The third largest funder of sport in this country is local authorities who, as we all know, are facing significant cuts. Like it or not, those cuts will most likely fall in areas in which those authorities are not bound by statutory protection; other than playing fields that is all facilities, sports development, community clubs, sports inclusion projects…..need I list them all?

I am on record as supporting sports facilities, sports development and community sport as candidates for statutory protection (as they are for many of our European neighbours) and would suggest that any government serious about a lasting sports participation legacy would make this a key component of any integrated strategy for the development of sport in the UK – a strategy that no government has yet seen fit to produce.

Indeed, it is the lack of investment in good strategy which most undermines grass-roots sport in this country. In June last year a Sky Sports News special report on legacy highlighted the problem of local authorities being unable to fund sports facilities when using Finsbury Park athletics track as a back drop.

One of the programme’s expert panel, former NBA star John Amaechi made the point; “…what’s going to happen here at the Olympics could be worse even than just people not participating afterwards, it could be that you excite young people to play, they go out into their communities to look for where to play and they come here and they realise it’s grassed over, it is no longer a facility where they can get the right kind of coaching and the right kind of development. That would be a true tragedy.”

The local facility might be closed, mum and dad can’t afford to get them to the nearest one still open and if they can, the volunteers can’t afford to offer the level of support they once did and there is no proper strategy aimed at addressing these issues or the overall development of sport properly.

Some legacy.

(Blog first published at www.sportsthinktank.com on 2nd April 2012)

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, April 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

AT LAST, A STRATEGY FOR SPORT – BUT IS IT ANY GOOD?

22 01 2012

Regular readers of this blog will know that in the past I have been particularly critical of the lack of good strategy coming from politicians in general and the lack of strategy for sport coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in particular. 

Last week, DCMS announced ‘Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sport strategy’ – a positive step which I applaud. But, as strategies go, is it any good?

The new strategy is not the much-needed, long-awaited national strategy for the development of sport nor does it pretend to be. The purpose of this strategy is to target young people, in its own words, ‘creating a sporting habit for life.’ Whether it will succeed or fail will be difficult to judge because from the outset, a vital component of strategy has not been defined.

While flawed and poorly researched, the previous government were clear and concise about what success looked like; one million more people taking part in sport. The success of any strategies (or the initiatives employed in strategy’s place) could be judged. When the current government removed this target without installing a new one, they deleted that clear picture of success. And while the talk is still of more people taking part in sport, judging success is impossible. Ten more people playing sport is ‘more people’ but is it success? Of course not, but what is the measure? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? We don’t know. Thus from the outset any new ‘strategy’ faces an uphill struggle in that what it sets out to achieve has not been clearly defined. It is a basic Strategy 101 lesson, the more specifically you can describe success, the more specifically you can plan for its achievement.

‘Creating a sporting habit for life’ is in reality a crafty rebadging of the previous methodology employed by this and the previous government, a policy of initiativeitis. What this document does is pull a few initiatives together in a document with the word strategy on its cover.

Is it really strategy? Yes, it is. In its purest definition strategy means ‘a plan or design for achieving one’s aims.’ The government has set out its aim, woolly though it is, and this document forms a part of their design for achieving it. However, the difference between strategy and good strategy is important and this document falls short on a number of counts.

Strategists will know the term ‘Insanity Planning.’ It refers to the practice of doing the same thing today and tomorrow that you did yesterday and expecting different results. Insanity planning plays a role in the new DCMS strategy.

Not only is the policy of initiativeitis continued (albeit thinly disguised), the strategy relies on the same experts who have informed previous government initiatives and, according to the DCMS own statistics, failed to deliver. The strategy talks of working with a range of groups, “the people who know sport and young people best”, the very same groups and people within those groups who have been employed/funded by government to deliver the development of sport previously.

While within those groups there are many who do know sport and young people well, the assumption that all do is naïve. Indeed, there should be no place for assumption in good strategy. A further assumption being that knowledge of sport and young people brings with it knowledge of sports development and of strategy.

Insanity planning; using the same processes, the same people and initiatives designed by the same people who designed what went before (some of which look remarkably similar despite the new names).

Developing sport properly requires an understanding of the sports development continuum, a continuum which takes the participant on a journey from foundation to participation and, assuming talent, interest and support onto performance and excellence. Laying the right foundations is of vital importance to what will come later and this area has largely been ignored by the new ‘strategy’ – it jumps straight in at participation without considering some basics:

  1. People are more likely to pursue a lifetime of involvement in sport if they enjoy it.
  2. They are more likely to enjoy it if they have been given the basic skills that facilitate enjoyment.

Thus largely overlooking primary schools (although they are mentioned in afterthought in a couple of places) is to undermine that pathway at the outset. Consider a child entering secondary school who has not learned to catch – what is the likelihood of that child enjoying any sport in which catching is a requirement? It matters not how many opportunities the child has to try those sports, the foundations were never laid to facilitate the enjoyment.

Yet, if the teaching of Physical Literacy was made a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum in the same way PE is (and will remain) in secondary schools, no child should move on to secondary school unable to catch (Physical Literacy is best taught between the ages of 8 and 11). Physical Literacy covers a range of movement skills (of which catching is just one) vital to the future enjoyment of and success in sport and yet our past, present and now future systems continue to overlook them. (For more on Physical Literacy see: How Government Policy Past and Present Undermines Ours Children’s Future).

Would it be a difficult new policy to introduce? No, it could be easily added to the woefully small amount of time primary teaching degrees give to PE with workshops for those already in teaching. Would this be expensive? No, certainly nowhere near as expensive as spending £millions on initiatives which assume skills not taught, which assume the laying of a foundation not planned for anywhere else. Given the focus of the new ‘strategy’ is on providing young people with a habit for life, it is surprising this effective and economical way of laying a sound foundation has been overlooked.

And yet, this ‘strategy’ is a step in the right direction. It acknowledges the need for strategy even if only by putting the word strategy on its cover. It tries hard to pull together various initiatives to create a strategy of sorts. But it is not, nor is it a part of, a functional, well designed national strategy for the development of sport and it is this that is required, it is this that would offer the best chance of our delivering on promises of increased participation made in Singapore seven years ago (and of sustaining that increase).

What we have instead is a continuation of the silo mentality I had hoped the proposed merger between UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust would consign to history. There is certainly little sign of the vertical integration so key to properly effective, efficient, economical strategy.

The new ‘strategy’ is divided into five sections, the aspiration of each section is laudable but I am looking at this from a quality analysis perspective, not one of how warm the documents’ wish-list makes me feel.

The first aspiration is to build a lasting legacy of competitive sport in schools, something I am a supporter of. The focus, indeed the only offering is of the School Games. The document suggests that all children will be offered competitive opportunities through the School Games but I wonder, what of those with poorly developed physical literacy and how many life-long (or at least long-term) participants such an initiative will bring?

Aspiration number two is on improving links between schools and community sports clubs something that sounds like a rehash of New Labour’s ‘School-Club Links’ initiative only with fewer resources (same experts, same solutions – insanity planning). Credit where it is due though, at least this section lays out some clear targets by which to measure success. For example Football has pledged that 2000 of their clubs will be linked to schools by 2017. Whether that includes those already linked is not made clear however while 2000 sounds a large number if you break it down it is 8 clubs linking to schools per county per year. The ‘all-sport’ target is 6000, the equivalent of 24 clubs from all sports linking to schools per county per year. This is not what I call ambitious, representing only around half a club linking per county per year from each of the 46 sports Sport England currently fund.

Working with those sports governing bodies is aspiration number three. What is described in this section is not even an initiative; it is an outline structure which will require strategy from the individual sports to enable delivery of government policy via Whole Sport Plans. Whole Sport Plans is a grand sounding name for something started under the last government and which, far from being ‘whole sport’ are judged solely on government policy and funding targets. There is no additional requirement for each sport to provide evidence – or even have – any plans for the sport which provide development outside that decreed by government policy. In other words sport’s governing bodies are now positioned so as to be solely answerable to government rather than the sports in their care. Under New Labour many even restructured to ensure this. Government trusts governing bodies to deliver calling them “the experts”. These are the same experts deemed incapable of delivering previous policy, when they were also referred to as “the experts”. I repeat what I said above; being an expert in sport is not the same thing as being an expert in sports development which is not the same thing as being an expert in strategy.

The fourth aspiration is on investing in facilities an aspiration which must be welcomed by all involved in sport. That said, the ‘strategy’ announces nothing new, instead repeating the funding promises made in the ‘Places, People, Play’ initiative announcement. It is worth remembering Seb Coe’s warnings in Singapore in 2005 that no building has ever inspired anyone to take up sport; buildings must be a delivery tool for properly planned development.

Fifth and the final aspiration reported in the ‘strategy’ is that of opening up provision and investing in communities. Again, this is something all involved in sport will welcome however the document gives no clues as to the level of investment or how it will be targeted. The case study provided in this section offers no clarification, describing a badminton club which has “no joining fee, no membership fee and no need for a partner – creating a club that could sustain itself for the long-term.” How is not made clear and, as with all things strategy, ‘how’ is a vital question overlooked at the author’s peril.

So, we have a strategy of sorts which, despite my comments above, is a positive but small step in the right direction. Many of the aspirations are laudable but the absence of any meaningful description of what success looks like, sound sports development philosophy, vertically integrated thinking or, indeed, expertise suggests that while at last the government are trying they must raise their game if they are to improve further.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, January 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

LONDON 2012 – NOW TOURISM FLAGS A LACK OF STRATEGY

6 11 2011

I make no apology for returning to the theme of the Olympic Games and poor strategy. In the past it has been sport which has failed to live up to expectations and promises by hoping instead of planning. Now, it appears that tourism is following suit.

I would far prefer to be writing of the great example set by the strategies used to deliver our Olympic bid promises but sadly that is not the case. Instead I hope that others will look at the mistakes made and learn from them; at least that way the failed promises will serve some positive purpose.

It never ceases to amaze me how many apparently intelligent people, how many supposedly sharp business minds feel that by crossing their fingers and hoping that success will be delivered.

And yet, without strategy that is exactly what many do including, it seems, those tasked with delivering the promises on which our hosting of the Olympic Games in London next year were built.

I have previously covered (several times) in this blog the lack of strategy to deliver the two legacy promises on which the bid was based (and won) in 2005. The legacy promise of an increase in people taking part in sport across the UK has been shown to be hollow. Indeed, having assured us that the strategy for delivering this legacy does exist, Hugh Robertson the Minister for Sport and the Olympics was asked to show us that strategy as long ago as July 2010. Thank God we didn’t hold our breath waiting as he is still to produce any evidence that it exists.

Then there is the long running farce that is the stadium legacy, one that now looks nothing like that originally promised. If there ever was a strategy for delivering the plans we were promised, again we never saw it and it has been changed on the whim of Ministers, football clubs, UK Athletics, Newham Council and others on such a regular basis as to make any strategy which had existed meaningless.

The promised participation and stadium legacies were written into the bid which won the Games for London in 2005 making the lack of strategy to ensure their delivery all the more puzzling, as is the latest demonstration of poor or no strategy. Not part of the bid promise but nonetheless part of the long-standing promise to the British public was the boost the Games would provide for tourism.

True to form it appears that promise was also made with fingers well and truly crossed behind backs for no strategy to make that tourism boost appears to exist and now the European Tour Operators Association are telling us that tour operators to the UK have seen an average 90% downturn in bookings for the period of the London Olympics (BBC News 6th November).

Back in 2005 leading voices in the campaign to bring the Games to London, including Sebastian Coe and government Ministers Tessa Jowell and Richard Caborn, were rightly pointing out that no Olympics had ever seen an increase in sporting participation simply because they were held; for that to happen we would need a strategy to ensure the promise was delivered.

The same people were also pointing out that too many previous Olympic stadiums had become ‘white elephants’ once the greatest show on earth left town. Not London they told us as they showed us plans which bear no relation with today’s version.

And the same people were telling us of the boost to both the London and the national economy that tourism brought about by the Games would produce; despite the fact no previous host city could point to the same they assured us that London was different because they had a plan.

Now, the lie has been laid bare. There was never a realistic strategy for increasing sporting participation, neither was there a plan for ensuring tourism met expectations. There was a stadium plan (we saw it) but that has long since been thrown in the bin.

But there is a very positive side to this tale. It is in the lesson it provides to those staging events, running businesses, leading local authorities, managing charities and, in fact anyone who has great dreams of a future to come. It is simply this; if you want your dream to become a reality, crossing your fingers and making promises will not do.

If you genuinely want to pursue excellence, if you genuinely want to achieve whatever you set out to do, make sure you have a proper, functional strategy in place. Alternatively, don’t be surprised when you fail to deliver.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, November 2011

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

LEGACY AND THE OLYMPIC STADIUM – IN THIS WEEK’S EPISODE OF 2012…

12 10 2011

Anyone who has seen the satirical television  series 2012 must be beginning to wonder whether it is in reality a documentary as the subject of legacy stumbles from farce to fiasco taking in broken promises along the way…..

In this week’s episode we revisit one of the only two legacies actually  promised as part of our bid for the 2012 Olympic Games, that of the stadium  (the other was an increase in participation in sport).

First, a recap. What was promised was a stadium which could be used by  the athletics community after the Games. It was recognised that the Olympic  stadium would need a significant reduction in capacity in order to be suitable  for athletics needs and the plan was to remove the top-tier once the  Paralympics had finished leaving a stadium with a capacity of 25,000. The  stadium staying ‘as is’ was never part of the promised legacy or of the plan.

Then enter West Ham United (supported by Newham Council with Council Tax  payers money) and the plan changed. The legacy for athletics was forgotten  (although obviously it wasn’t sold to the public as such) and the new ‘legacy’  became one of a football club running a multi-event stadium (with athletics  track) to which athletics would be lucky to stage five events a year and gain  little or no grass-roots value from. But, we were told, because the track was  still there it was a legacy for athletics.

It was sold as ‘legacy’ so well that the public loved it. So when  Tottenham Hotspur entered stage left they were quickly painted as the ugly  sister. And yet, what Tottenham proposed was a reduced capacity (as in the  original plan) and a 25,000 capacity home for athletics (as in the original  legacy promise). But as the athletics legacy stadium would be at Crystal Palace  (still in London last time I checked) and the track at Stratford would be  removed, no one liked the idea. Tottenham were intent on seeing fair play  though and court action loomed.

Also heading for the Courts were Barry Hearn and Leyton Orient who  (rightly) pointed to football rules forbidding the re-siting of a larger club (West  Ham) on the door step of a smaller club (Orient). It looked a mess; it was a  mess and it was a mess wholly of the making of those charged with delivering  the supposed ‘legacy’ (forget the ones that were promised, we’ll never see them).

Meanwhile UK Athletics (UKA) were so pleased with the whole set up that  they decided to keep their head office in Birmingham and support the  redevelopment of that city’s Alexandra Stadium where their new offices will be  sited. Publically they always supported the West Ham move because it preserved  the track – although they could never explain what use to the sport was a track  at a 60,000 seat venue which the sport could rarely access and never fill.

Then, all of a sudden they could – well, for one week in 2017 at least.  It was decided to bid for the IAAF World Championships which would require that  big stadium in Stratford. It should be remembered that UKA had previously been  awarded the World Championships for 2005 before embarrassingly having to  withdraw on the back of broken government promises. The sport was given a £40  million ‘legacy’ (they do like that word) payment by the Government (apparently  to stop them complaining) – £40 million which has produced a legacy which can  only be described as invisible at best. Certainly the grass-roots of the sport  have seen no benefit.

The IAAF received guarantees the track would remain and that Britain  would definitely not cause embarrassment by pulling out again. Minister for  Sport, Hugh Robertson, went on television and promised the nation that the track  would remain (probably to yawns all round).

Whoops Minister! It then emerged that both Tottenham (they whose plan  actually delivers the promised legacy) and Orient had rather strong cases and embarrassment  was on the cards should they win the legal battle. So the same people who  promised one legacy (well, two actually) and then changed the plans decided  that they would change the plans again.

The Olympic Stadium was suddenly not going to be sold. It was going to  stay in public hands (you could hear the tax-payers cheer). It was going to  keep the track. It was going to stay at a 60,000 capacity. It was now going to  be leased to a football club (no one doubts a deal has already been done with  West Ham) for a rent equivalent to approximately 40% of annual running costs  (more cheers from the tax-payer).

UKA, who are staying in Birmingham, can now continue their bid for the  2017 Championships. They love it. Although how it services any athletics legacy  beyond that has yet to be made clear. West Ham probably love it too but can’t  do so in public (yet).

Grass roots athletics can’t see any benefit. Tottenham lose out big time  despite being the only party apparently concerned about the nation’s legacy promise  being delivered. And Orient…..well, it’s not clear how this clears up their  issue. If (when) West Ham do move into Stratford, it could well be the death  knell for them….unless they fight it in court?

Oh yes, I forgot to mention; UKA’s only rival for the 2017 IAAF World Championships?  Qatar. The only nation ever to have actually delivered a legacy of increased  participation on the back of a major games (2006 Doha Asian Games). I guess if  we lose we can always accuse them of corruption or has that already been done?

We await the next chapter with bated breath. It would make a great  storyline for a satirical television show only surely, no one would believe it?

As for legacy? As for clear strategy? As for promises?

© Jim Cowan, Cowan  Global Limited, October 2011

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, Events, Sport, Strategy

CHELSEA FC AND THE CHELSEA PITCH OWNERS – MORE DETAIL PLEASE

6 10 2011

Chelsea Football Club’s sudden and unexpected offer to the Chelsea Pitch Owners appears reasonable at first glance but on closer inspection more detail and guarantees must be sought…..

When Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) came into being in 1993, it was as a way of the fans safeguarding the future of their club at a time when the property developers were hovering over the prime piece of SW6 real estate that is Stamford Bridge.

The basic premise was simple and very effective, if the fans own the pitch and the land on which the stands are built then the ground can’t be sold (at least not without their say so).

In 1997 CPO bought the freehold (supported by a £10 million loan from the club) and have since leased the land back to Chelsea FC at a peppercorn rent. CPO has sold 15,000 shares at £100 each and, declaring my interest, I am one of those shareholders.

On the face of it Chelsea’s offer to the fans seems reasonable. Chelsea’s future is far more secure than it was in the 1990s now that Roman Abramovich has brought his £Billions to the club and Stamford Bridge’s capacity for further development is limited by the geography of its location. So, if the club want to develop a new stadium and move, they will need to own the current ground in order to sell it.

The CPO was set up entirely for the purpose of safeguarding the well-being and future of the club. The club seems to be suggesting that our time has now passed and I know many other CPO shareholders who agree (and lots of others who don’t).

My personal position is one of doubt. I need a lot more information before I can believe that CPO selling the freehold back to the club is in Chelsea FC’s best long-term interest.

Chelsea FC’s last end of year accounts show an operating loss of £68.6m against a turnover of £205.8m. The financial picture is improving but not at a rate of knots and without Abramovich’s ownership the club would be in trouble.

Abramovich appears to be here for the long haul and has publicly spoken of passing the club onto his son in the future. Yet my unease is not calmed. We have seen tragedy at Chelsea before, most recently the death of Matthew Harding, so we understand that nothing is forever thus begging the question, what plans do the club have in place should tragedy strike? It would be good business practice in most organisations to have continuity and succession plans, even company wills, in place.

Have Chelsea taken care of such details or is the strategy one of enjoying the good times and crossing collective fingers that they don’t turn bad? For without ownership guarantees there is no guarantee of the club’s best interests being served by a future owner. Such worries are currently safeguarded by the CPO ownership of the Stamford Bridge freehold.

Of far smaller concern to me is the club’s offer to buy shares at the same price (£100) fans paid for them. The intention was never that shares in CPO were in any way about profiteering but if we are to trust the future of our club to those making the offer one would hope they are good enough at finance to realise that with inflation their offer is one which asks the fans to lose money on the deal – as if football fans aren’t fleeced as it is these days!

My ‘investment’ in CPO shares was never meant as an interest free loan and I would expect a modest adjustment to the offer to counter the effects of inflation. That £100 buys much less than it did on the day a reserve team player called Rati Aleksidze and an emerging youth team player called John Terry presented me my share certificate on the pitch at Stamford Bridge (see picture).

One final thought, the main thrust of the club’s perceived need to buy the shares in order to develop and move to a ground with a larger capacity; if the well-being of Chelsea Football Club is the primary motivation and the fans have served the safeguarding of the club’s home so well for nearly two decades, why the need to buy?

Why not include the CPO in the development plans and when the time comes to sell Stamford Bridge we do so on the understanding that we will then pay the funds raised to the club in return for the freehold of the new ground?

To me, that makes sense from a business, from a football and from a fans perspective and continues to safeguard the future of the club regardless of the fates that fortune’s fickle finger might deal us.

It is not enough to simply be Carefree. It is up to the CPO to KTBFFH! (Apologies reader if you don’t understand, Chelsea fans will).

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, October 2011

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 11 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

OLYMPIC LEGACY – THE ONE THAT WON’T GO AWAY

23 09 2011

Former Sports Minister Richard Caborn has hit out at “disastrous” results  in the drive to boost sports participation on the back of the London Olympics.  In doing so, he once again highlights the myth of the promised Olympic legacy  and the failure of successive governments (his own included) to plan properly  for its provision.

Speaking on the BBC, Caborn says that  Sport England’s aim of increasing participation by one million is facing “complete failure” before going on to  say; “The  Olympics will be a spectacular success but we are not capitalising on that. We  are in danger of failing completely on the long-term sporting legacy of the  Games. There needs to be a major change of direction in the strategy on this if  the disastrous decline experienced by many of the sports is to be reversed.“

Sport  England’s ‘Active People Survey’ supports Caborn’s position showing that since  2007/8 only nine sports have seen an increase in participation while 21 have  seen a decline. The reality is likely far worse with athletics being reported  by Active People to be one of the nine growth sports while independent analysis  of participation in the sport suggests the opposite is true. Athletics is the  only sport to have received independent analysis of its reported figures.

However,  where Caborn calls for “a major change of  direction in the strategy” what is he actually asking for?

It was  Richard Caborn who was the Minister for Sport when, in 2005, London won the  right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. It was at  this time that the target of one million more participants was set by him but  no strategy (worthy of the name) was ever presented for public consumption by  Caborn’s department. Instead a series of initiatives were launched in the hope  that they would support the stated aim.

Caborn  told the BBC that in 2008 it was decided that Sport England should merely fund  governing bodies instead of involving local authorities and regional sports  councils in boosting participation. Sport England insist that is not the case.

Of  course, it should be remembered that Sport England’s primary role is to support  government policy via the distribution of Lottery cash and therefore the  government and Sport England are not that separate.

The fact  is that both are right. Caborn’s successor as Minister for Sport, James  Purnell, decided that the governing bodies (NGBs) should play a larger role in  raising sports participation. Sport England were briefed to change ‘strategy’  to reflect this and agencies like the County Sports Partnerships were, as a  result briefed by Sport England to focus more closely on working with NGBs.  This did not stop them also working with local authorities, education, health  and others, it was the prioritisation of such partners which changed.

Purnell  did not stay long at the DCMS but for the remainder of its life the last  government continued on a policy of ‘initiativeitis’, a term coined by Tory  Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson, in place of one involving proper strategy  aimed at the integrated development of sport.

When the  Conservatives won the election, Robertson lambasted initiativeitis and  promised to deliver the missing strategy. That was in May of last year and yet we  still await the strategy while initiativeitis continues unchecked.

But what  of one million new participants in sport? Caborn is right when he says the aim  will not be delivered but he has missed an important fact; no one is trying to  deliver it anymore. In an interview with The  Guardian newspaper on 29th March (and reported in this blog) the  Olympics Secretary Jeremy Hunt admitted that the previous government’s target  had been quietly dropped by the present government shortly after the election.

What the  revised target may be we don’t know. What the strategy for achieving the  revised target may be is also unknown. The sad fact is that despite promising  to the world that a legacy from hosting the Games in London would be an  increase in the participation in sport, no one in government has yet seen fit  to produce a strategy (worthy of the name) to deliver on that promise.

When  Caborn calls for “a major change of  direction in the strategy” what he should be asking for is a strategy  designed to deliver on our promise to the world however the evidence of the  past and of governments of both hues does not suggest we should be getting too  optimistic.

Speaking on BBC  London yesterday, Hugh Robertson reminded us that no other host nation has ever  managed to achieve the feat of raising participation through hosting the Games,  something we knew already and something which the bid presentation in 2005  pointed out, telling the world that Britain would deliver.

Not  without a strategy we won’t and time is fast running out!

More from Cowan Global on the Olympic Legacy issue:

Initiative-it  is – A Welcome End?

Initiative-it  is Returns Before It Had Even Left

Is It Initiative-it is? The Minister Says Not

The Public Funding Of Sport And A Legacy From 2012

How Government Policy (Past & Present) Undermines Our Children’s Future

School Sports Partnership Likely U-Turn Begs The Bigger Question

Sports Strategy Still Absent While Initiative-it is Continues Unchecked

School Sports U-Turn Further Evidence That The Government Lacks Strategy

Legacy Or Smokescreen?

Now The Stadium Is Decided Can We Please Debate The Legacy?

The Clock Finally Stops For The Promised Legacy

Olympic Legacy Report Is Right – But For The Wrong Reasons

Sky Sports News On Legacy – Not Such A Special Report

© Jim Cowan, Cowan  Global Limited, September 2011

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

SKY SPORTS NEWS ON LEGACY; NOT SUCH A SPECIAL REPORT

23 06 2011

Sky Sports News weekly ‘Special Report’ is the latest media attempt to examine the success or otherwise of the promised Olympic legacy of increased sports participation. Unfortunately, the programme failed to grasp facts and offered little new to the debate.

Not so special

On Monday evening (20th June) Sky Sports News broadcast its latest ‘Special Report.’ I had hoped that, at last, the matter would get a proper airing in the media, that in-depth research would lead to probing questions and the fallacy of the sports participation legacy would be laid bare.

Unfortunately, the report was far from ‘special’, failing to answer, or even summarise, views on the single, poorly researched, question it posed.

Of the programme, Sky Sports News stated; “We explore why amateur sports clubs are facing closure as their funding is cut. Should Olympics organisers be doing more to ensure a sustainable legacy?”

The programme pointed out that of the £9.3bn Olympic budget not a penny is for legacy. The point that Sky’s researchers appeared to have missed was that at no stage had any of the Olympics budget ever been allocated to legacy. So, when the programme reported that Haringey council were cutting the £50,000 required for the upkeep of the Finsbury Park athletics track and that councils up and down the country were doing similar, they were trying to tie two separate stories together.

Sebastian Coe quite rightly pointed out that; “those are borough priorities and it would be entirely wrong of me to start inserting myself in the local politics.”

So, if the Olympic budget doesn’t have a responsibility to legacy, whose budget does?

The answer to that question was provided in the first few minutes of the programme when Sport England’s CEO, Jennie Price, told the viewers about Sport England’s £230m per annum budget of which £135m is specifically earmarked for legacy because of 2012. It sounded very clear to me but somehow Sky’s researchers had missed it and their presenter, Julian Waters, continued down the wrong road.

Early in the report, it became apparent that Sky were taking a scatter gun approach to the promised legacy issue but, lacking decent research, even a scatter gun approach lacked aim.

As part of our bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, Sebastian Coe and his bid team as well as the government had repeated time and again that no Olympic Games had produced a legacy of physical activity simply by being staged; that no stadium had inspired a young person to take up sport. The evidence was clear; hosting the Olympics will not provide a legacy of increased participation in sport unless that legacy is specifically planned for. That plan is what we were promised, that plan is what we still await. Sky failed to pick up on this.

So when Coe stated; “our teams are preparing for 2012 and they will be of huge inspiration to local athletics clubs the length and breadth of this country,” he was telling us something he knew, in legacy terms, not to be true. Sky failed to pick up on this so the question as to why he suddenly
thought the Games would now produce this legacy where before he didn’t went unasked and unanswered.

Next in the sights of Sky Sports’ scattergun was the Centre for Social Justice’s (CSJ) report into legacy (on which we reported on 24th May). Cue Hugh Robertson the Sports Minister telling the camera that he thinks that they (the CSJ) are wrong. However, where the CSJ offered a report and researched evidence, Robertson offered none.

Caborn; on Sky's panel

Instead he went on to inform us that we (I assume the government) are only in the early stages of putting the sports legacy together, something former Sports Minister Richard Caborn would disagree with but, although he was among Sky’s panel of experts, was never asked to comment on.

Robertson was right on one point, in explaining that no one would expect them to have secured the (promised) legacy 14 months out from the Games. However, this is the same Minister who promised that he had a strategy for the development of sport a year ago but has yet to produce it. The same Minister for Sport who (correctly) criticised the previous government’s lack of strategy and use of ‘initiativeitis’ (a term he coined) before going on to employ a policy of, you guessed it, initiativeitis in the hope of producing a legacy of some undefined sort. We still await the strategy.

Laying the ground for the likelihood that the promise made to us all in 2005 was unlikely to be delivered, Robertson stated; “no other Olympic City has ever delivered big increases in mass participation on the back of an Olympics so we’re trying to do something very new here.”

He’s right, of course, on both counts. It has never been done before, ergo it is something new. Unfortunately no one from Sky thought to ask him; “how?” That is, what is the plan?

Sky Sports News had assembled a panel for the programme of former Sports Minister Richard Caborn, Times reporter and former Olympic table tennis player Matthew Syed and former NBA star turned basketball developer John Amaechi. It should have been a good panel but the debate was fairly aimless, the presenter allowed direct questions to go unanswered and statements went unchallenged and unexamined.

Waters asked; “whose responsibility is it to make sure that next summer’s Olympics are not just 19 days of sport and nothing more?”

It’s a straightforward question and easy to answer. As part of the bid Tony Blair sought and received support and commitment from all parties for the promised legacy of more people participating in sport. It was a government promise which made up part of the bid. Responsibility therefore sits fairly and squarely with Government, DCMS and with their quango Sport England.

The panel chose to ignore the question and so the viewer never found this out. Instead, Richard Caborn decided to tell us about the legacy  delivered through School Sports Partnerships. A component of a lasting legacy maybe, but Caborn demonstrated blind faith in his initiative failing to explain the need for the integrated approach he referred to later in the programme. Regardless, School Sports Partnerships are scheduled for termination by the current government in September.

The former Minister did try to bring us back to the matter at hand pointing out that the £50,000 pa needed to maintain the Finsbury Park athletics track used as the programme’s backdrop, was a local authority issue.

He went on to state that he would; “argue very forcibly that investment into these facilities is good for health, good for social inclusion, good for education and it is also good for sport as well.” He went on; “I don’t think that message has got across as firmly as it ought to have done in Whitehall.”

Why not? As the Minister for Sport wasn’t that part of his responsibility? Isn’t this a key component in making the case for legacy and wasn’t that legacy promised by all parties in 2005?

Sadly, none of those questions were asked. Instead we returned to the Olympic budget of £9.3bn. Yes, it is a huge sum but we had already established that the promised participation legacy didn’t come from that pot. Nevertheless, the panel were asked; “should Coe speak out on legacy?”

Frankly, we all should; and Coe speaking out, provided he avoids the usual spin and sound bites pre-approved by his PR people, would be welcome as he does have the ear of politicians. And remember, forget the £9.3bn Olympic budget, it is politicians of all parties and the DCMS who promised the legacy and Sport England (not LOCOG) who hold legacy budget.

Instead, courtesy of Matthew Syed, we returned to the old chestnut of there being no evidence of the Olympics ever having any kind of legacy effect on young people and participation. Everybody knew that and acknowledged it at the time of the bid. That is why the plan for achieving the participation legacy is key: The still absent strategy.

Syed: Confused about when Game Plan was published

Syed did introduce a suggestion that something underhand was going on. He told us that; “in fact Game Plan, a government document that  wasn’t published at the time, said all this but we were not told as a public when we were being looked at for support for the Games.”

I’d have hoped for better from an established sports journalist who works for The Times. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, or do the research to check what you are saying is correct. For the record, the Olympic bid was won in 2005, three years after Game Plan was published and available to one and all via Sport England’s website.

No, and apologies for repeating myself, we (the nation) went into the bidding process with our eyes open, we knew that just holding the Olympics would have no effect on sports participation levels. We were promised that legacy would be delivered via an additional plan.

John Amaechi brought us back on track reminding us that sports participation legacy work has, successfully been taking place. Unfortunately he was referring to ‘International Inspiration’, another part of the promised legacy; that of increasing sports participation in other countries.

Back to the UK, Amaechi questioned the promise that had been made pointing out that; “you can’t promise the country a certain type of result, young people playing in Olympic facilities was the image dancing in everybody’s head, and then deliver on the other hand the idea that young
children simply looking at Olympic venues from their estate is a result.”

So, have we established that? It seems clear that no one believes buildings will inspire participation. But then, no one ever did. So did the programme now move on?

No such luck. Without boring you with the full details the point was regularly returned to. I, on the other hand will move on.

Richard Caborn proceeded to inform us about the UK Schools Games at which 1300 young people will compete and which is now in its 5th or 6th year (he appeared uncertain).  On to legacy at last, even if 1300 is not exactly mass participation.

Caborn told us; “That is part of a legacy for sport as far as the Olympics is concerned. It would not have happened had it not been for the Olympics.” As a former Minister for Sport one would have hoped that he had heard of the English Schools Athletics Championships, an event that was first run in 1925. Athletics (along with many other sports) had its own version of the School Games 23 years before even the last London Games in 1948. So why something like the UK School Games would not have happened without the Olympics is not entirely clear and whether they are adding new participants to what existed is, at best, questionable. Unfortunately Julian Waters appeared to lack the knowledge to question Caborn’s assertion.

Instead, Matthew Syed picked Caborn up on whether the Schools Games would add anything to the legacy aim of increasing participation pointing out that 16-35 year olds are playing less sport now than they did in 2007. As Syed put it; “the words are great but the evidence doesn’t back it up.”

Caborn chose to respond by talking about schools sport, ignoring the 16-35 age group and talking about the increase in quality PE participation enjoyed by school children under Labour. Forget the debate; he had a political point to make.

Caborn did show an understanding that schools, clubs, elite, coaching and more all need integrating to generate a genuine lasting participation legacy. Unfortunately neither his nor the current government applied that (sound) thinking to any integrated planning for the development of sport in this country.

He pointed out that in not integrating our planning we are missing the trick, “for example, like the Germans and French have done.”

I hoped we were now getting there. Where? Pay attention!

Remember the cuts to funding for sports facilities, the £50k pa required to keep the athletics track at Finsbury Park open, somewhere for the population to play sport?

I hoped because in France and most of Western Europe sports facilities, sports development and community sports clubs enjoy statutory protection. Not in the UK. I hoped that Caborn or maybe the ineffective Julian Waters (Sky’s presenter) could introduce this apparent gap in UK sports provision to the discussion. It is something this blog has regularly suggested should be a key component of legacy planning; statutory protection for sport.

Without such protection it is inevitable that councils like Haringey will cut funding to facilities like Finsbury Park when funding is tight. Why? Because by law they have to preserve those other services which do afford statutory protection. They might not want to cut sports provision, but that is not the point.

But having brought Germany and France into the debate, they were forgotten and not mentioned again.

John Amaechi skirted the issue by talking about the cost of playing sport and how the fees add up and can be a deterrent. He raised the issue that the CSJ had previously reported about coaching needing to be relevant and appropriate; “kids don’t stick around just because the ball is shiny…..they want somebody that they can connect with.”

His comment hinted at the need for an integrated, planned approach not the expensive and unproductive initiativeitis relied on by governments past and present.

The first half of the programme ended and I was left wondering; what was the point? Surely it would improve? Surely Sky’s researchers had dug up some facts? Surely they were going to speak to someone who had a deeper understanding of sports development and of strategy?

Bicourt; questioned official participation figures

The second half started promisingly. Double Olympic steeplechaser, school teacher and Coach John Bicourt openly questioned the participation figures Sport England produce (which this blog has discussed) and which do not bear any sort of close examination. The programmes second reporter, Geraint Hughes, was not interested. Bicourt was cut short and we returned to the panel.

Amaechi wasn’t playing and suggested that the way participation is measured is “problematic” that to get meaningful data measurement of consistent participation is needed whereas Sport England’s measure is “episodic.”

Caborn, the Minister under whose party’s stewardship the measurements were introduced, speaking about boxing (he is the President of the ABA), suggested the figures don’t represent the real picture. He told us that if we are talking about more people being active the figures are moving in the right direction but if we are talking about participating in sport they are probably going down.

However if Bicourt, Amaechi and Caborn are all correct (and the evidence suggests they are) and the way the figures are gathered is “problematic” how we know any of this with any degree of certainty was not explained. (Thanks to independent research we do know that the data for athletics are grossly over exaggerated, so must assume the same for other sports in the absence of further research). An important element of judging the success or otherwise of any strategy is the ability to measure accurately.

But let’s get back to the point at hand, the promised legacy. The panel were asked; “Are there two sides to this, supply and demand? Supply of facilities and demand from people to use them?”

We’re back to needing an integrated strategy again without anyone really grasping and making the point. Matthew Syed did inadvertently pick up on a vital element of strategy though; that it is based on sound research and consultation, that what it sets out to achieve is achievable. He talked of picking figures from the air referring to the now abandoned target of one million more people taking part in physical activity. He talked of how randomly the figure had been chosen.

John Amaechi described the possibility of returning to the Finsbury Park athletics track just before the Games start to find it closed as “criminal if
we have promised one type of legacy from the Games and, because we’ve decided certain facilities have to go, that doesn’t get delivered.”

Amachi; poignant statement

Pointedly, he went on; “what’s going to happen here at the Olympics could be worse even than just people not participating afterwards, it could be that you excite young people to play, they go out into their communities to look for where to play and they come here and they realise it’s grassed over, it is no longer a facility where they can get the right kind of coaching and the right kind of development. That would be a true tragedy.”

Indeed it would John.

Amaechi’s poignant statement aside Sky Sports News Special Report failed to address the issue of the promised legacy of more people playing sport. It rambled; it failed to zero in on salient points when raised. It suffered from a lack of research, misunderstanding and failing to establish who is responsible for the legacy; it’s planning and its delivery. Ultimately it didn’t just fail to answer the question it had posed, it failed to offer any conclusions at all.

So what should the programme have addressed?

Having clearly identified that simply holding the Olympics will not increase participation the programme should have asked; how are we planning to deliver the legacy we were promised? Where is the legacy plan?

A sharper more focused programme might also have asked why, as part of that plan, sport in the UK is not afforded the same statutory protection it receives from many of our European neighbours?

And if they really wanted to probe they might have asked why the fixation with structure when, without clear strategy we have yet to define what structure would best benefit direction, management and delivery of any strategy?

We are not talking about anything more than sound sports development principles and sports development planning. We are talking about the need for a fully, vertically integrated, strategy for the development of sport in the UK.

Perhaps next time Sky Sports News commission a ‘Special Report’ into this area they should ask; Olympics or not, with the millions of public money funding sport in this country why have we never had such a strategy?

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2011

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

OLYMPIC LEGACY REPORT IS RIGHT – BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS

24 05 2011

The Centre for Social Justice suggest the Olympic Legacy promise was little more than a sales pitch

Regular readers of this blog will know that we have long questioned the lack of any strategy for delivering the promised 2012 legacy of more people participating in sport. Now, a new report is warning, “the legacy promise will come in time to be viewed as a highly effective sales pitch that was never fully realised.”

The Centre for Social Justice have today published a report damning the promised Olympic legacy as little more than a sales pitch and suggesting that it was never possible to deliver that promise.

However, while I agree with the sentiment of the report I find myself disagreeing with the claim that the promised legacy was impossible to deliver. It is probably more palatable to believe that than it is the alternatives that either we never tried or that those tasked with the job were simply not up to it.

Whether we call it an Olympic legacy or whether we call it the benefits of sound sports development planning is irrelevant. It is true that the opportunity to put such planning in place with the benefit of the Olympics placing sport into the front of minds up and down the country has likely been missed. However, that does not mean that it is too late to begin adopting the principles that have been absent and start better developing sport both for its own sake  and for the purpose of social benefit.

The sad truth is that for modern day sports managers whether they are at the DCMS, Sport England or with governing bodies, a good sound bite will always trump a good strategy. It has reached such proportions that it appears possible they actually do not know the difference.

Last year, after promising his government had a strategy for the development of sport, Hugh Robertson was asked to “show us your strategy
Minister.” We still wait and Robertson has not returned to that debate.

He was present for the launch of ‘Places People Play’ frequently presented as a strategy for developing grass-roots sport but in reality little more than a collection of initiatives given spin and a brand name.

It is a game the previous government also played, not just with sport but with any number of issues. In place of sound planning, create an initiative; what Robertson damned as ‘initiativeitis’ before then continuing its use in sport.

For many of the managers filling roles in sport, it has never been any different. To them, this is how you ‘develop’ sport. Many are ‘generalists’
employing generalist skills to the specific specialism of creating strategy. The result is that while many of those strategies sound good at the press
conference they fail to deliver. They announce to the world what they seek to achieve without considering how. Then quietly they fall from use and within another couple of years there is another press conference, another announcement and another ‘strategy’ doomed to the same demise.

It is no use looking for blame; the sorry truth is that there is little likelihood of anyone being to blame. They are operating in a blind spot, where
they assume a level of knowledge based on a ‘this is how we do things’ approach which everyone else is also employing.

Good managers should be able to say, “this is not my specialism.” They should know the difference between management and leadership. Good managers ask for help from the experts in order to do things better next time, in order to seek continual improvement.

The management of sport, from Minister down, unfortunately views the maintaining of a mediocre status quo as the pathway to success and, until they change, it is not just the promised Olympic legacy which will go undelivered – it is the development of sport to its full potential within society.

Further reading:

‘More Than a Game’ – The Olympic legacy report from the Centre for Social Justice

Centre for Social Justice press release re ‘More Than a Game’

‘The Difference Between What’s Possible and What’s Probable: Why the Centre for Social Justice is Wrong on Olympic Legacy’ by Prof. Mike Weed

Previous Cowan Global blogs of relevance:

‘Initiative-it is – A Welcome End?’- 26 May 2010

‘Initiative-it is Returns Before It Had Even Left’ – 29 June 2010

‘Is It Initiative-it is? The Minister Says Not’ – 15 July 2010

‘The Public Funding Of Sport And A Legacy From 2012’ – 31 October 2010

‘Sports Strategy Still Absent While Initiative-it is Continues Unchecked’ – 18 December 2010

‘Legacy Or Smokescreen?’ – 31 January 2011

‘Now The Stadium Is Decided Can We Please Debate The Legacy?’ – 13 February 2011

‘The Clock Finally Stops For The Promised Legacy’ – 3 April 2011

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2011

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,085 other followers