ABA OF ENGLAND LIMITED BOARD MEETING

8th August 2011

ABAE offices, Seminar Room 3, EIS, Sheffield

11.00am

Item 1 / Present
Voting Attendees - K. Walters – Chairman (KW), M. Abberley – CEO (MA), C. Andrews (CA), T. Goreham (TG), R. Scott (RS), S. McHugh (SM), D. Cockell (DCo), D. Mapp (DM), A.Lynch (AL)
Non-voting attendees - D Barnard (DB - note taker)
Apologies
F. McKelvie (FM): G Masterman (GM) R Caborn (RC) - President / I = Information
D= Decision
A= Action
Item 2 / Declaration of Interests
C Andrews - Ormerod Rutter (Family relationship)
D Mapp – BABA Board Member
KW – BABA Chairman / I
Item 3 / Company Secretary
Accounts currently with Auditors, due to be returned 10.08.11. DM & DB due to review these and circulate prior to AGM.
. / A
Item 4 / Board Minutes, Matters arising and Action Points of Last Meeting (22.08.11)
Minutes and matters arising
TG requested;-
·  the issue regarding the Junior team being managed by a Regional Coach needed to be inserted. – Agreed.
DB to add
·  TG also commented that he did not agree that boxers of this age should be allowed to travel to an event without adult supervision, as he believed had been the case recently.
·  that the issue re Adidas kit, as also discussed at Council, be inserted - agreed
DB to add
·  TG related an incident re boxers being made to purchase head guards at the recent England event and requested confirmation from MA that the supply of kit was indeed being looked at and what the current situation was.
MG confirmed that a new kit order was to be completed and the previous “roll-over order” discarded. England squad kit requirements are to defined, then remainder of order to be completed by the Development team (approx. £13k), for distribution down to grass roots level in some form.
DM commented that the International team has to be priority, followed by the National Finals and that any kit for clubs should focus on head guards & gloves, given that boxers normally competed in club kit.
DCo asked if the kit in Fareham, with previous National Coach was now with the CEO.
MA confirmed all kit was in Sheffield
Action Points
Ap 4.1 – Additional payment
MA confirmed that several meetings held with individual and sum payable agreed. To be paid August 2011. Letter confirming payment already provided
AP 4.2 – Letter to SE
See Item 5, CEO reports
AP 4.3 – PBA/PCC Relationship
MA updated the board regarding the PBA/PCC and Leader Courses, in that it is apparent that there are inconsistencies in how these are being administered across the regions.
Boxing Leader stats to be audited as were Boxing Awards
MA confirmed the current income/registration process for Leaders
TG highlighted previous funds received by London ABA but returned to PBA for reasons agreed.
.
AL asked if the Leaders received a registration number and registration book
DB confirmed that Leaders were registered on the database, receiving a registrations number and that registration books had been issued to B Jones (some were still in stock at ABA) and that registration stickers are issued annually as per other membership categories.
MA suggested that a formal agreement should be made for all endorsements,
Agreed unanimously
AP 4.4 – Award to PK
Letter to be sent following announcement of AGM
AP 5.1- Performance Unit
Refer to item 5 – CEO reports
AP 5.2 – Operational Review
Operational review approaching completion. Work around Job Descriptions on-going. Staff Handbook completed, DB to hand out copies to Board for feedback. DB explained that a Manager handbook, with more detailed information regarding HR processes/organisational standards had also been drawn up to support the staff handbook and this was almost complete. This would also be circulated when completed.
MA reported that several of the volunteer areas were also being reviewed such as Commissions, Key volunteer role descriptions, etc and that the Members handbook would require re-aligning once these reviews were completed. The Handbook would be agreed and circulated following all areas being reviewed.
MA also confirmed that the various other areas was being reviewed in order to align them to the changing organisational needs and the WSP from 2012 onwards, progress in this would be reported back to the Board accordingly.
AP 5.3 – CSRT
Trustees were discussed and MA confirmed that application for the good of boxing would be put forward
5.4 – Sportfocus Info
Matchmaker postponed (as agreed at last meeting). Coaching course module content currently being specified.
AP 5.5 – Season End Report
TG suggested that as Council members were the voting members it would be possible for them to ratify affiliation fees earlier in the year at a point after the Annual Budget had been set. The Articles of Association would need to be amended to allow this to happen earlier than the AGM. All agreed that this was a sensible procedure. DB to raise a proposal for the AGM, on behalf of the Board, for a Joint Meeting to be held by the Board & Council in March annually to agree the affiliation fees for the coming season.
Agreed unanimously
Action Point – DB to put forward proposal
AP 5.6 – ABA Box
See item 5 CEO Reports but confirmed that 1 and 5 year Business Model provided in back papers.
AP 5.7 – Academy definition
MA is completing an additional note on this issue, to suggest how ABA may “endorse” Academies. DM confirmed that qualitative endorsement MUST be the way forward, so as not to dilute the ABA Brand
AP 5.8 – CRB Issues
MA referred to the review provided in the back papers
AP 5.9 – Ball Inn
MA confirmed he was exploring this issue with DM and would update the Board on progress
AP 7 – Bank Account & Credit card
MA confirmed he was now on the bank account and also had received his corporate credit card
AP8 – Financial Records
DB confirmed that DMcE’s (LDL) previous PA at LDL was not answering any emails from ABA and therefore a letter had been prepared requesting that the records be provided
AP9 – Additional Statements given to Chairman
A letter had been provided in response, confirming that the matter was now closed. / A
A
I
I
D
I
D
A
I
Item 5 / Chief Executive Reports
MA referred to the documents in the back papers for each point)
5.1.1 – Sport England (SE)
MA reported improving relationships with SE and referred to the correspondence provided
Final 2 years of WSP and 2013-17 funding criteria will change. Criteria will be more results focussed against criteria including good governance, but is mainly around the Active People Survey (APS)
ABA’s position in APS is quite good and going forward we will need to be in a strong position.
Next WSP process starts Oct 2011 and aims to be completed May 2012, with results/confirmation from SE expected before London 2012. The basis of the WSP will be an organisation stating what is needed to deliver specifics, i.e. “we need this much, to do these things”.
SE’s challenges are around the 16-25 age group and tacking “drop off”. ABA’s tradition is in getting people in at a young age and then have them boxing through (under 17’s).
ABA does need to generate commercial income to support fundamental boxing for 16 and under as SE funding will not be pointed to under 16’s.
DM informed the Board that there is empirical evidence showing that sport “selection” starts with individuals from approx. 13 years of age and that boxing has a unique opportunity to do well in the 16-25 age group. He stated that ABA should be able to increase funding from 5% of the funding pot to possible 10% (albeit of a potentially 15% smaller pot).
MA stated that the organisation needs to get the next 24 months correct
CA asked how we were to get report/obtain data for the 16-25 group and MA confirmed that Rebecca Gibson would cover this in her Growth Plan report to the Board later in the Agenda
DM stated that the Board and Council need to grasp the opportunity to obtain this funding – then we can decide how it is spent down to grassroots. He cited an example of a sport facing/having removal of funding due to 30% drop in participation and confirmed that Boxing was different and has an opportunity, better than ever before, fur to the structure, of being able to bring in youngsters. He explained the connection of APS participants and commercial income.
RS added that ABA Box fits that age group (16-25)
MA informed the Board that Boxercise was classed as “Dance” and NOT boxing, so that anyone confirming they undertook Boxercise, credit would go to Dance. He stated that re-classification would be a possibility
SM stated that we had talked about this before but he understood that nothing had been done about it.
DM confirmed this and added that, at the time there was little advantage/impact on funding, but that this may no longer be the case.
AL asked what other areas would fall into recreational boxing besides Boxercise and if just punching a bag at home would be classed as boxing.
MA confirmed that yes – punching a bag at home would be classified as Boxing. He confirmed that ABA Box should be seen as income generating activity and that the Board could decide where to spend that money/income. He confirmed that the ABA Box “soft launch” was Sept to Nov, with full launch in Jan 2012 to hit the peak increase in gym activity and coincide with London 2012.
MA informed the Board that he had been to several regional AGM’s and has taken from these the fact that the NGB/Regional structure is not close enough to its members. Members want to know where the money goes – or they assume it goes into the wrong places.
5.1.2 Operational Overview
MA provided an update on membership numbers and presented a set of pie-charts to the Board (see back papers) showing how affiliation income is allocated across areas of expenditure. He explained that the charts were only applicable to ABA fees and did not include any monies/additional costs that Regions/Divisions may add, at point of collection.
DM stated that he wasn’t aware that Associations added to ABA Fees and asked the Executive (Boxing) Directors how this was presented to members
RS confirmed that in his region the costs are proposed at the AGM for an amount for the ABA and an amount for the Regional Office
DM asked if that had been voted on & RS replied that it had
AL stated that an additional amount was not added in his region. He confirmed that the ungratified and increased amount was applied to fees and members were told that, if the fees were not ratified at the AGM the increase would be refunded
DM stated, if that is the case then at the end of the Regional AGM’s we will already know how the vote will go at the ABA AGM. He asked AL how he had presented the figures to his members and whether he had explained how or why the increase is requested.
AL replied that they hadn’t gone into much detail.
DM responded that this was an issue of paramount importance and asked, if the information had not been provided to the members, how would they know whether or not the increase request is reasonable? Had they been asked to vote yes or no on an increase with no information as why?
MA asked the Board if it was the case in other areas that members vote without anyone knowing the majority of reasons/implications for rejecting or agreeing an increase.
TG stated that this had been the case for years. He confirmed that “in my region they normally present the argument for increased costs and the membership normally responds with ‘we can’t afford it’”.
DM thanked MA and DB for a good piece of work in producing the charts/information
MA informed the Board that when he had asked members where they think the money should go, they invariably say it should go to England events and clubs. He informed the board that the charts supplied showed that this was where the money was actually going, but it appears that the message was not getting through to our grass roots members.
DM asked the Board that should the increase be rejected at the AGM, what budget cuts were being proposed?
MA informed the Board of the risk to income and suggested that the chart information be circulated along with the potential budget cuts to its members ahead of the AGM.
DM asked AL where, as a Director, he proposes that cuts are made and stated that it is down to Directors, to inform the membership of why the fees are set as they are.
AL stated that he did not know where he would cut – he would have to go back and study the figures that had been presented at the meeting in March but that he thought they could not meet the budget approved
DM stated that they had a personal responsibility for the finance of the organisation and he found it shocking to hear that any Director may not have understood his responsibilities when voting to approve the budget
AL apologised for any error on his part.
DM suggested that regions informed it’s members of the implications of rejecting the increase at the AGM
KW explained the basic conversation and exchange between his Executive and its members when voting, which resulted in an apparent rejection of the increase.
DM suggested that the CEO write to all Secretaries re the likelihood of a NO vote and confirm the cuts that will need to be made should the fees not be agreed
Action Point – CEO to contact all secretaries re impact of a NO Vote at AGM on affiliation fees