HANDBALL ASSOCIATION

“Delivering the Olympic Legacy”

National Executive Committee meeting

19 May 2016 10.30am – 2.45pm, Tennis Centre, Loughborough University

Agenda Item Minute and Action Responsible Action

1. Attendance Board members: and welcome Mike Briers, (MB), Clare Henderson (CH); Chris J Smith (CJS); Cesar Castillo (CC); Sue Whitehead (SW); Geoff Woodall (GW); Chris Smith (CS).

Staff: David Meli (DM)

a) MB welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked everyone involved in Cup Finals that took place on the previous weekend. He commented that he thought it was one of the best, with a good number in attendance. His only comment was that perhaps there was too long a gap between games; just a personal observation.

CH commented that they would be asking for feedback from all visitors. MB reported that he had received emails from ex- players praising the streaming content. DM advised the Board there were over 4,000 views during that weekend in 90 different countries; in comparison, the previous total views for the entire year was 5,500. As the cost was £350, this was a good investment, and provides a springboard to attract sponsorship at future events.

b) Apologies: Bill Bailie (BB); Ed Simpson (ES) via telephone for item 3.

c) No change regarding declarations of interest since the last meeting.

d) Meeting confirmed as being quorate. 2. Minutes of a) The Minutes of the last meeting were reviewed and accepted as a previous true record. meeting Matters arising:  DM has yet to receive details from BB re: German Federation.  ES summarised the training notes from the last session, but DM DM/ES not clear if it has been circulated, so will be re-circulated.  DM reported the lack of funding for the commercial role will be on the risk register.  DM thanked directors for suggesting contacts to invite to the cup finals.  MB still to send to DM details of former player who is now a head teacher, for DM to make contact. MB

b) No items were raised that weren’t on the agenda.

c) No matters were raised for AOB, but were identified later in the meeting.

3. Main ES joined the meeting via telephone. strategic discussion a) Sport England strategy, funding process and plan development. topics The Sport England strategy was launched on 19 May, and DM had sent a copy to all board members. He outlined there was a departure from the last eight years’ of strategy by SE. Initially, this could be seen as a reason for governing bodies to be wary as wider audiences than governing bodies were referenced.

DM believes there are lots of opportunities for the EHA as a governing body, and sees this as a way of developing further the approach the EHA have been taking with regard to partnerships and delivery. For other governing bodies, it may well be more problematic, especially those with a big inflexible infrastructure. This would be less of a challenge for the EHA.

There are seven areas SE are to invest in, a significant drop from the 30 they are currently investing in. Inactivity is the biggest target. It is a more bespoke process, with those governing bodies not targeting certain areas, not applying for financial support in those areas. Over time, the aim is to continue activities, but with a reduction in cost for SE.

There are seven investment principles, based around what can be achieved, and rather than dealing purely with governing bodies, it is open to a wider area of delivery partners. The investment areas are linked to the seven target areas: under-represented groups, female participation, those from lower socio economic backgrounds being some examples. One benefit EHA has is that its membership is from a diverse mix, over 60 different nationalities, reaching those from minority ethnic backgrounds. This is a real advantage for the EHA.

The challenge of changing behaviour, changing activity levels to regular activity habits and its maintenance has been targeted.

SE wants to encourage increased efficiency and will be encouraging larger governing bodies to streamline their services; e.g. shared services. There is potential to develop and become part of NGB buying consortiums. It is also encouraging diversifying sources of income. This is tricky for the smaller sports, who do not have a huge audience or can attract major sponsorship; the EHA is not 100% reliant on SE, which counts in its favour.

It is concerned with supporting the sports’ core markets, with local delivery in more localised areas. The EHA has started looking at this by working with local organisations to be delivery partners. The funding of facilities is not something that the EHA is necessarily interested in currently. CJS suggested lobbying for multi sport facilities.

The core market of EHA is children and young people; they are two groups that EHA can directly appeal to, using ‘Try Handball’, a fun and engaging version of the sport, without the technicalities. Peterborough is a good example of working with local partners to deliver ‘Try Handball’ to engage with those from ethnic minorities. The flexible nature of the product is an advantage, as it only requires basic competence for enjoyment. There is a lot of potential with this product.

DM reported the aim is to make the sector more modern, independent and sustainable in the long term. The target setting is going to be broader. The EHA, although relatively slim line in terms of overheads, needs to demonstrate it is still searching for efficiencies.

CH identified the talent/elite pathway is missing, and the progression of high quality athletes throughout EHA development programmes could be a target for EHA. DM advised that was discussing this with UK Sport.

Place based working is another avenue to be explored. Partnerships with major national companies could be developed, and the format of ‘Try Handball’ rolled out. Another example is that the format EHA currently has developed with Street Games could work with Youth Offender Boards or the Police. It is transportable.

DM reported there are lots of good opportunities, but the challenge will be to obtain the level of funding as before. DM has a meeting with the SE relationship manager coming up. No timeline has been set, as it is going to be more fluid.

DM suggested that the aim for the EHA going forward might well be to put stronger mid tiers of support in place, especially for participation, in five regions. Good quality members of staff working with local delivery partners. The plan would be to move from a big headcount, with lots of part time staff, to less in number, but higher quality full time staff. SE see governing bodies as having an overarching role. The EHA has started that transition, working with local partners, and developing more delivery arms with leisure providers, local authorities. DM advised the Board he had a meeting with Fusion, a major national leisure provider, about Try Handball and the package. DM maintains the EHA is in a good place to start with, in comparison with many other governing boards.

CS highlighted the principles outlined in the SE strategy match many of the EHA areas. DM affirmed the aim is to continue with the EHA plan, and suggested a bridging document between SE and EHA plans.

CH noticed that EHA can evidence it is doing a lot of the groundwork already, and asked whether this means more money could potentially be allocated to EHA to extend its reach, otherwise the same amount of money would result in the same impact. DM replied that SE’s willingness to offer more money to governing bodies is unclear. Having looked at the financial information, EHA needs approximately £600,000 in additional income to achieve what DM has planned. That takes the total to £2.4 million and a question remains as to whether SE will offer that considering it is double the amount awarded in the last funding round. It is a starting point.

GW commented how pleased he was that DM had lead the Board in the right direction and argued that as EHA can evidence what it has achieved, it should be asking for more. DM replied that the aim was to obtain more, but everyone needs to be aware that there is less money in the overall SE pot. He will be aiming to obtain a higher award. The groundwork will be putting partnerships in place, and having the products ready, and money needs to be available to put all this in place.

CH responded that it makes a nonsense of their strategy if it is evidenced that EHA are meeting targets and they offer EHA less money. DM replied that the whole process is more bespoke than in previous funding cycles, with more personalised targets based on best impact. There will be a discussion in a few months about the range of funding, and there is always the opportunity to obtain more throughout the cycle, as EHA has before. DM also reported that EHA has progression to show over the last seven or eight years, and not many sports can highlight their 2012 legacy. GW suggested that dealing with some other bodies could be a challenge for SE, as there is no track record of dealings between them. CH said that was a positive for the EHA, as it positions itself to be an established partner with SE.

DM concluded that there are lots of positives to demonstrate; the simplicity of access and the demographic make up; not many sports can tick those boxes.

CH asked about partners to approach, to have lined up ready, such as health partners. CJS reported that the Macmillan charity recently ran an event that was sponsored by SE and Public Health Authority; AGE UK were also involved.

MB said he was delighted board members were pleased with what was achieved, yet there were still areas that needed work on, within the organisation. There are almost 900 teams last year, and more than that this year, yet recent events were disappointing. He recently attended an event at Oldham, which has great facilities, but there were teams that did not show up. If one of SE’s strategies of having two teachers per school running activities, and if EHA has competitions with teams not attending, it causes an issue. GW asked if anyone followed up with the teams, to identify the reasons behind it. It was reported that some were unable to get the team to the event, or a teacher was absent.

MB said some things were done well, but others were not quite right. CS asked MB what other areas? MB suggested female representation on the governing body. DM replied that for smaller governing bodies, this was an issue. If SW was to stand down, would the Board choose to positively discriminate? DM advised this was more about trying to change the mind set of larger governing bodies. MB suggested the board could also represent nationalities too.

CH advised that with the sub groups, the aim was to create a succession process, so that when board roles become available, sub groups can put forward nominations of those who have the suitable qualities such as understanding the role of the board, and what being involved means.

DM said that the Board needs the right people with the right skills and experience, not because they are simply women. Also looking at the membership base, and then looking at the board, it is not necessarily reflective. There is a mix based on those who are involved in Handball itself, with links to clubs and key areas, as well as those on to offer commercial expertise.

b) Future appointment/election of EHA Chair

MB told the Board he had spent considerable amount of time considering the discussions around the future appointment/election of the next chair. He is still of the opinion that it should be someone with Handball experience, as he is aware of a number of people involved within Handball who could do the job quite well. He explained that it had become a far more major issue than he expected and so he asked the Board to consider his proposal: that potential applicants from outside Handball could be interviewed as long as those interested in the position within Handball had the option to be interviewed too. He advised he thought the membership would agree with this proposal.

SW suggested the job description for the Chair could have the knowledge of Handball could be desirable. MB replied that he would regard that as an essential criterion.

CH said that the decision now is to propose to the membership that when it comes to seeking the best person for the role, they can be considered from anywhere, whereas currently, only those within the Handball community can be considered. The cycle of processes means that should it not be agreed at the AGM, it could not then be amended until the following year, and it could result in the Board being without a Chair. DM advised that SE were considering making it mandatory to have an independent chair. ES advised that SE recognised that it would take some time to move towards this, but NGBs would have to start the process.

MB suggested that outside applicants could be invited, but he would like at least two Handball members to be interviewed by the Board. ES responded that governing bodies were being encouraged to become more professional and that it is crucial to be able to select the best candidate for the role, without being constrained. Members cannot be forced to put themselves forward. The Board compiles the job description. Knowledge of Handball would be useful, not critical. Previous experience of chairing a board is critical; previous experience of involvement in sport is critical.

DM said that he would be encouraging a director from SE to be involved, and sit on the interview panel, bringing a broader knowledge to the panel. MB replied that it was being taken out of the hands of the membership and questioned whether that was right. It has to be taken to the AGM. DM responded that they were not suggesting members cannot apply, but they have to have the skills and experience. GW said that he could see MB’s viewpoint, but that it should be opened up. He also said that it had to be worded correctly to ensure it is accepted by the membership. CH replied that it is the Board’s job to lead the membership in the right direction, and it is vital a persuasive argument is given to the membership.

CS asked MB what he was afraid of or unhappy with; MB replied nothing. CS highlighted the progress Handball had made, the standing of the sport has increased, it is held in high esteem by SE, so why would someone accept the position of chair and not do their best? It is about professionalising the sport, bringing the best skills. MB replied that that was CEO’s role. In the past, British Handball appointed someone as Chair; he attended meetings and contributed, but as soon as the Olympics had taken place in August 2012, he walked away and he would hate that to happen to EHA.

CC said that he accepted everyone’s point of view, but agreed with MB. The membership has to select. CC is a board member because of his skills, so feels he should not be making decision to tell the membership the next chair should come from Handball or outside Handball. The Board should suggest the change, and let them choose whether the next chair comes from within Handball, exclusively or not. DM said what is planned is that the Board has the option to look outside the Handball membership as well as within the membership. CJS agreed that the next chair has to have the necessary skills for the role. CH commented that it is constraining the EHA by enforcing the next Chair to be selected from the Handball community.

DM outlined how he planned to address the AGM: explain the reasoning behind the proposal and what the Board recommends. A discussion may be required on the day and there could be proxy votes in advance of the discussion without members necessarily hearing all the reasons for the proposal. Universal approval by the Board would be the best option. MB agreed. DM said that if members applied and have all the skills, it would be the decision of those on the appointments board, but should the membership decide not to make the change, funding may not be as forthcoming. DM agreed the wording for members was important.

CJS asked if it was a question of the membership not trusting the Board. GW thought it was more that they did not fully understand what was involved. CJS suggested that the Board ask the membership to trust their decision, and that the Board is trying to be more transparent. GW advised that there were many members who were more concerned about their clubs, than EHA as a whole.

After the discussion, DM confirmed he had part written the information to be presented to the members. ES would be asked to contribute the reasons in favour of the change: code of governance, Action: DM/ES to the charter, potentially required for funding, emphasising the finalise wording for freedom for anyone within sport to apply. A job description would proposal to AGM be available with the aim of giving potential applicants a chance to consider if they are interested. (ES left the meeting).

4. CEO’s Report  KPIs: DM advised that he was unable to provide detail on some of these, as the outcomes of the March/April membership survey were not yet finished.  Staffing: Kath left EHA and the working environment has stabilised. John Thompson is leaving on 19 July; there are lots of external factors contributing to the decision. DM has been concerned for his welfare for sometime and had taken advice from HR consultants. DM requested suggestions from Board members about how to cover his post until March 2017, the end of the funding cycle. It was agreed to discuss with SW and MB as Action: DM to both participation managers are leaving around the same time as discuss further with Stacey is due to go on maternity leave. DM confirmed that he MB/SW would like to recognise the work John Thompson has done for EHA over the years.  CJS asked for a few points to be clarified from the Operational Plan:

Item 3 – who are other organisations? CJS suggested the Association of Physical Education might be a useful link to develop.

Item 12 – clarification of 65 teams, not 65 universities. DM confirmed this, and there were 30-35 universities involved. DM has discovered that there is no real process or criteria for being a recognised sport within BUCS and the EHA should potentially take more ownership of being involved. The aim is for the EHA to directly organise the 2016/17 championships with a view to making it a BUCS event the following year. CC confirmed that BUCS were difficult to deal with, and the tournament is shrinking because of their own failures; their lack of organisation is failing the tournament. Lack of communication was a big problem.

Item 21 – the issue over clubs’ coaches having the highest qualification – DM hopes this will improve as the courses are brought in-house.

 CJS asked for an update on the AASE programme. DM confirmed that there is a year’s extension that has been brought in, but it is still going to be abolished. EHA are able to recruit for this year, and the current first years can finish the programme in April 2017 as planned. It has been suggested that perhaps a one year programme could run. DM reminded the Board that it could impact the EHA financially as it is a source of income and also in terms of recruitment. CH suggested the costs of only running the second year programme could be higher as a result of there being no first years.  MB asked how many were in year two; DM confirmed there were 75 on the programme in total with 33 in year two. SW confirmed there were 42 in year one. DM advised the aim was to recruit up to 60 for the new cohort in 2016/17. DM advised he would continue to lobby for suitable funding.  CC advised that a pencilled in date for refereeing course in April never took place because he never received any response from Action: DM to follow Bobby and wondered why there was no refereeing course on the up with Bobby. AASE programme as they could have been ready for the next county championships. GW advised it had never been mandatory. SW suggested that because it was pencilled in to take place at Stoke Mandeville, that could have been an issue. DM explained it was not always possible to do lots of local courses, hence the proposal to hold a central course. SW said that it should be mandatory and that because it was not listed in the programme, many took the opportunity to take part in the courses locally. DM advised that the EHA should either offer specific courses for AASE or to signpost other courses, and offer support. CH suggested that it was strategically important, as it impacts other things. MB said it was very frustrating. DM explained that it was not feasible to make other qualifications a precursor to attending the programme and a way needs to be found to encourage attendees, whether locally or centrally. CC confirmed the theory could be carried out in 2.5 to 3 hours, and the practical could be assessed at the schools/regional finals.

 SW outlined her reasons for opposing any central programme and had emailed Bobby to request the funding proposal for both a central and regional programme. DM advised that as they were currently run regionally, there were challenges around the consistency of the delivery and the completion of reviews. By bringing students together and centralising the programme, it would make it easier to bring in specialists to one session for everyone involved. SW advised she still had strong concerns about how students would get to the central location. DM explained that their travel expenses would be paid. There could be the potential to have two or three days at one venue, and then move to another for the next part of the programme, but this may all be curtailed by future plans for the AASE programme. SW reiterated there were time constraints and logistical issues, with those in the North impacted to a greater extent. DM explained those in the South West of the country also had access issues too. The aim is to support clubs, improve the standard of coaching, so that clubs and individual players benefit.  CJS suggested hubs for clubs. DM said this was an option, having performance centres, sharing knowledge and ideas. DM reiterated there was no plan to have one talent club for the whole country.

5. Business a) Finance: Directors’  CJS advised that at the end of the financial year, a small loss was Reports made. At the last AGM, the surplus was criticised by the membership, and members wanted it to be re-invested.  The reserves remain at the same level and there is cash in the bank.  Currently the management accounts show EHA is in a good position, and with the increase in funding from SE, it looks like there is a huge underspend in April. This will level itself out over time. This was mainly due to the profiling of payments to external partners and would catch up over the next couple of months.  MB asked if the lack of courses had had an impact. DM advised it was part of what contributed to the losses. MB asked if the amount of income from the courses last year is greater than the previous year. CS confirmed they were £15,000 less, and it was a lost opportunity rather than an actual loss.  GW asked what was stopping the commercial role being filled? CH replied that as well as it being underfunded, the four year plan needed to be completed and understood, and after the commercial review last year, it was apparent that attracting big sponsors was a huge challenge and perhaps building on the digital audience was the way forward, to drive corporate handball and fulfil other targets. Therefore until there is more clarity about the way forward, CH would be happier knowing the scope before taking that next step.

b) Marketing & Commercial:  CC asked about the delays to the new website. CH explained there had been delays on both sides, but delivery of the website was taken the previous week. As compensation for not being able to launch the new website in time for the Cup Finals, the website was being populated for EHA, which saved approximately two weeks’ of Chris’ time. It should be live in time for the new membership year.  DM said a business decision had been made to integrate a new membership and coach education system into the website, a move to a more tailored system. A session will be run at the Club Conference on 18 June to show members how it works. Current membership will be transferred, with the aim that registration will be less time consuming and easier for all concerned.  CH told the Board that clubs had been asked to provide content for the website. However, some clubs were very slow in sending the required information and, in one club’s case, had even refused to supply it.

c) Governance & Legal: Nothing to report.

d) Discipline & Appeals:  GW updated the board that in addition to his report, John Murphy had taken over the role of Chair of the Competitions Disciplinary Committee from Dean Hardman.

e) Refereeing & Officiating:  Sponsorship of referees – DM has a meeting with Premier on 7 June, with the aim of switching their support to the referees, allowing the kit to be provided to referees. It was planned to choose pink for the ladies and lime green for the men. CC suggested it was a way to bring some sponsorship into the sport. DM added it may be an incentive to recruit.  CC has met with Miriam, looking at better ways to deliver courses and activities.  A discussion took place around EHF delegates and their duties. CC has a potential candidate in mind, but GW added that there were many other people to be considered.  The Board approved CC’s request for funding for referee CPD. It was confirmed that it would be for any referees interested in attending.

6. Portfolio a) Workforce Development: Directors’  MB asked if the coaching qualifications marketing launch was on Reports target? CJS confirmed it was, and Miriam is carrying out scope work to look at their costs. DM advised it was envisaged the one day activator introductory course would be about £60 to £70, with First4Sport.  MB asked if it was compulsory to attend the activator course before starting the level one course. DM replied that ideally they would have attended the activator course, although existing experience would be taken into account.  GW suggested the level one course should be a pre-requisite for attending the level two course, and everyone agreed.  The members of the advisory group team were approved. The only costs to be incurred would be travel expenses. GW asked

who else was on the group and CJS confirmed it was Miriam and CJS. The idea was that the third space on the group was to invite people to meetings.  SW asked about the guidance for the make up of these advisory groups. DM confirmed that each group has terms of reference. SW asked how members are selected.  It was agreed that a good working practice would be new members to the group should be approved by the Board. Agreed: Appointments of additional committee members are to be approved by the EHA board.  CS asked if there were any safeguarding issues raised by people Action: DM to joining these groups. DM advised the group members would not discuss with CPSU. have direct access to young people or vulnerable people. DM has a meeting with CPSU coming up, so will raise the issue with them for clarity. b) Performance & National Teams: No issues were raised. c) Handball Development: MB commented that the report on the Schools Finals shows exciting progress in England and everyone involved should be complimented. d) Competitions & Events:  Following the last board meeting, GW met with Leeds Hornets to discuss their future plans; they have come to the realisation that they cannot sustain being in the S8 and agreed to move down to the Championship. North & South clubs in the Championship held a playoff to see who should replace Leeds Hornets. The team top in the South, (Cranfield), could not fulfil the fit for purpose criteria which left Brighton as being the only ones left. Manchester was given a second chance and the other teams in the leagues agreed.  CC commented that this decision and the explanation behind it should have been communicated to the Board. MB advised he had been informed. CC replied that he was not questioning the decision, just the lack of communication and that it should have been communicated to the membership too.  It was highlighted that this was a symptom or outcome of the problem of advisory groups not being minuted and reports not being submitted to the board. At the AGM, there is a risk of the membership criticising the Board for this. There is considerable unhappiness within the Membership with the Competitions Group. Actions are taken without any accountability, and should there be a problem with a Board member, there should be a deputy to stand in.  MB confirmed he had a list of issues to discuss with CW, but currently it was inappropriate as he was sick. He advised that he Action: MB to meet would aim to contact and meet with CW before the AGM. with CW  CJS said he was pleased to hear this as there are a number of members who will be vocal at the AGM. GW supported this view and reported that a vote of no confidence was expected by some. Two people have raised the issue with GW over lack of meetings. GW also said he helped Alysha where he can, but it reflects poorly on the Board, especially if no action is taken. There has been a complete playing season with no Competitions Report.

7. Risk a) Review of Risk Matrix Management DM advised there had not been in any significant changes to current risks, although comments had been updated in orange.

 Failure to meet KPIs – DM suggested there could be a risk around the new SE funding process strategy, but feels they are linked.  CH suggested there is a risk around external factors that are outside the control of EHA.  The potential vote of no confidence was another issue. DM to Action: DM to discuss with ES how to handle the situation. DM suggested discuss with ES members could be asked to submit any resolutions in advance and these could be brought forward on the agenda, or raised on the day and MB decides if they can be discussed.

b) Actions to mitigate identified risks None

9. Any Other  SW asked the reason behind the decision to move the Cup Finals Business back one week in 2017 as this is problematic for those involved with exams. DM asked who had informed SW of this date as no date has yet been set. Alysha had drawn up a draft, but this had not been signed off by the Competitions Group, nor brought to the Board. DM explained the calendar and new rules were sent out on 2 June last year. SW advised that the ‘Expressions of Interest’ form features that date. DM confirmed it should be brought forward one week to avoid exams.  SW asked who appointed the two mentees to coach the U18 womens’ team, with BB as mentor. She was disappointed this great opportunity had not been opened up to all coaches and advertised. It was not a transparent process. MB asked it was advertised; DM replied that he did not think it was. MB asked who carried out the interviews. DM confirmed it was Mark and Bill.  DM explained there were not sufficient calibre of candidates for the role so BB put forward an interest to mentor the coach, rather than taking on the role of coach. DM admitted he should have advertised the post. Two names were put forward and were interested in the role. DM confirmed it was a failure on his part. DM said he would ensure this was not repeated and that all roles, whether voluntary or paid, would be advertised. DM confirmed that BB and Mark also knew it should have been advertised.

 SW responded that she knew of three people who would have been interested in the role and there had never been this

opportunity before. DM explained there should be the opportunity in the future, but he was not sure there was

anything that could be done currently to rectify the situation.  CJS suggested BB could be asked to run sessions for top coaches. SW commented that she did not know where the selection came from, and who nominated those two for the role.

 CS suggested a lesson had been learned here.  DM confirmed he would reiterate that any roles will be Action: DM to speak advertised on the website and should go out to all clubs. DM will with BB and MH. also talk to BB and Mark about the situation.  DM raised a query on behalf of the U18 committee regarding

changing the determining factor of the age range for the league from school year to calendar year of birth. This was to bring it in line with the format used in European competition and would help better prepare players who were going to play in international events to be playing regularly at the right level domestically. There was a wide ranging discussion on this topic with CJS feeling that making the change could cause issues with school teachers who may not understand the differences between normal age group situations and the European format. CJS also felt that more information and a formal proposal regarding the change should have been presented via the C&E Action: DM to speak Group and Director. DM said that he would go back and ask for with C&E Group. that to be put forward for consideration by the board.  DM also updated the Board on a meeting he had held with representatives from London GD who were interested in applying to bring the EHF Cup Finals to London in 2017. This meeting also involved the Mayors Office who would only support a bid if the governing body was involved. This was still early days yet and no formal decision had been made but the potential profile increase that could be delivered by having such an event in London was considerable. DM will keep the Board updated on any further developments.  GW also raised an issue for information rather than action regarding the potential geographical changes in the teams within S8 that could mean the clubs in the NW could be travelling further and incurring greater costs to compete. Whilst it was agreed that this could be a problem, it was also felt that changes in teams and locations was a natural part of the development of the sport. SW indicated that from her club perspective they were fully prepared to make the travel sacrifices if it meant they were still competing at the top level. 9. Date of next 23 July / 24 September / 19 November 2016 / 21 January 2017 meetings Please note the change of date for the September meeting which Mike has requested be moved due to having a prior engagement on 17th Sept.