BUCS (EAST REGION)15th January 2013

University of Hertfordshire Development of the UH Athletic Union

Nick BrookingDirector of Sport

First experience…• Kids Village Holiday Camps• Mini Movers• Kids Parties• Swimming lessons

Students...• Athletic Union Sports Clubs • Active Students – Sport

England funded project

Elite Performers...• Host and train Olympic athletes• Home venue for Mavericks

Superleague Netball • Training hub for young elite athletes

45+ Activity Groups…• Phase 4 Cardiac Rehabilitation• Multi Activity Mornings

Original ???? - 2003:University – employed sports staff, managed sports facilities (one 4 court sports hall, one astro, 2 squash courts, awful grass pitches and gym in portacabin), held coaching budget and employed sports coaches, some direct coaching/team involvement.

Students (SU) – collected club membership fees, ran clubs, managed fixtures and affiliations etc via BUSA (through SU sports officer), provided subsidy for clubs (kit, equipment, facilities for those not on site), ran sports awards.

Strengths – good links SU social facilities with sport, good informal liaison UH with SU staff, small, limited but “personal” facilities across 3 campuses

Weaknesses – variable control/accountability for finance, poor safety/high risk especially external based clubs*, inconsistent fixture fulfilment, lack of development of sustainable programmes, no UH identity, no social sport – although arguably all sport was social! 90% activity at one of 3 campuses - 11 football teams – 6 Hatfield, 3 Hertford and 1 Watford – regular cancellations/poor quality experience all round.

Interim 2003-6University opened £15million Sports Village as part of new campus. Sport a significant investment for both student and community use. SU sports staff (2) re-located into sports village (office next to reception).

University – as above but far wider service delivery and larger, new sports facilities a major selling point for recruitment

Students (SU) – as above but now part of a bigger and better sporting environment with greater opportunities. Strengths – co-location means sports professional management have increasing influence to improve clubs; opportunity to be more strategic e.g. reduced to 3 x 11 a side representative football teams and developed an internal (16 team) internal football programme so more students play more regularly.

Weaknesses – responsibilities/accountability still fragmented; fee collection still hit and miss; SU admin remote from point of delivery; limited opportunities for cross selling

Change 2007

• As part of proposed further investment into SU activity from University (planned capital investment in social facilities - nightclub, shop, cafes, SU offices etc) it is agreed that responsibility for management of student sport would transfer to UH Sports staff.

• This was reflective of similar moves elsewhere in sector and driven by desire to reduce fragmented approach and combination of related issues such as health & safety, efficiency and accountability, desire to ring fence money allocated for sport purposes, desire to continue to improve performance, better use of partner networks and other links.

• UH and SU agreed the establishment of the Athletic Union Board to be formal point of liaison between University and SU executives – reporting to VC. AU committee (club representatives) would be operational forum and retain link to Student Council.

• SU sports staff TUPE transferred to UH Sports/Sports Village staffing .

Change 2007 (continued) • Other Sports Village staff add value/contribution to student sport so more staff also work within AU activity

areas at key times (e.g. marketing, club 1:1/liasion meetings as well as activity specific and events).

• Other student sport activity continues outside the AU remit – individual, casual and organised social sport, Active Universities, Campus Football, fitness membership, coach education, academic links, projects etc – but such relevant activity is also reported back to AU Board as part of wider context.

• SU sabbatical officer retains wider SU remit – societies, RAG etc. - as well as chairing AU committee and being invited to every club 1:1 and sports development team meeting

StrengthsResponsibility/accountability, resources, expertise and facilities all in one place/one management; joined up memberships so better promotion and deals for AU members; AU kit gives UH student sport a greater identity (in and out of UH); club resources allocated where/when needed; grater join up of social, development, representative programmes. 2012/13 largest number of members.

WeaknessesStudents do less for themselves (was happening anyway?);

Finance

Original UH - £25k coaching, £70k facilities for SU clubs. Total £95k

SU - £54k staff (plus other admin), £60k subsidy club costs not covered by income. Total £114k

Since 2007 UH – £70k AU staff, £40k coaching, £120k facilities for SU clubs, £60k club subsidy and affiliations etc (pus capital debt costs for sports village). Total £290k

SU - £60k deducted from subvention (in theory) and given to AU as SU contribution; club subsidy and staff costs previously born by SU now comes from University. Total £60k

Student experience

• We have over 7000 students ”signed up” as users through: • International Sports Day, Sports Fair, Sports Fest, Freshers Fair• Active Students – free, grant funded*, social sport target 7500 registered over 3

years – achieved 3,344 in 2011/12 • Campus Football – 16 x 11 a side teams and 12 X 5 a side teams • H&F membership – target 3300 • AU membership (29 clubs, representative and competitive sport mainly through

BUCS) – target 1100 members – 1300 achieved• 25 sports scholarships, performance programmes• plus a number of casual users/informal groups

• i.e. approx. 50% UH “core” number of students