ENGLAND 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 British Handball 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.