SAA NEWS LETTER (01/10)

We believe you would have been following the news concerning SAA in the local media in recent times. There have been a lot of things being said and ‘revelations’ about us that probably made you sit up in your chair.  

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the ‘issues’ as raised. We certainly owe a duty to you, our affiliates and the public alike, to give you the truth or at least, an accurate reflection of the matter. 

Our preference would be to use our website to present to you the information, which we are certain that you will find interesting.

And we hope that through this series of transparent communication, you will be duly enlightened and arrive at the obvious conclusions.

We would like to have communicated earlier but it is timely now; the SEA Games 2009 is out of the way and the plans for 2010 have been done, to address these necessary concerns and put them in their proper perspectives, to you.

Over a series of communication, we will address the following areas:

1. Credibility
2. Performance plans and promises
3. Future of track and field events and road running
4. Audit/Finances

For this week, we shall address the issues of credibility in light of the issues highlighted in the media:

• SAA received $12m from SSC
• SAA has poor selection criteria
• SAA was always poorly rated by SSC

Download:

Annex A
Annex B
Annex C1
Annex C2

We attach the audited statement of accounts which was presented at the annual general meetings below.

For easier reference, we have summarized the findings:

Observations
Firstly, you will see that SSC grants only amounted to $6.289m during that period (2004-2008).  In fact the total turnover of SAA was $12m of which 48% was generated by the activities of the Association.

During that period, over 70% was spent for development of the sport (overseas meets, local track meets and training schemes).  The rest was used for administration and salaries which included cost of senior technical staff.

Dependence on SSC

While we were doing our research, we also realized that SAA has been relatively independent.  Most NSAs depend about 80-90% on SSC funding.  Based on 2008 figures, SSC funding accounts for only 40% of SAA income. 

The picture for the early years is even more interesting.  We have extracted some of the early years for your consumption:

SAA (or rather SAAA as it was then known) received only 7% of its income from SSC.  Almost 60% of expenses were spent on sport development (overseas meets, local track meets and training schemes.

SAA Financial Strength

At present, SAA has cash reserves which should be enough for it to function for a further 1-2 years without any further income.  However with some of its commercial activities such as running events and sponsorships, SAA should have a healthy business model moving forward.

Every year, SAA had always prepared the necessary selection criteria for various qualifications for overseas trainings and meets and especially for major meets and leading to major games like the biennial SEA Games.

The selection criteria for the SEA Games would have been established at least a year before and SSC would require that a copy be given to them for their inputs.

For the 2009 SEA Games, it was no different – SSC received a copy and even provided a memo note (see annex) to SAA that the selection criteria provided were comprehensive and adequate.

This report commissioned by SSC was used to assess SAA selection criteria used for SEA Games 2007. However as can be seen in the report, SSC consultant opted to use the SEA Games 2009 selection criteria.  His glowing comments which were received in July 2009 are appended below:

“This is a very concise and clear policy.  It covers all the key issues that a comprehensive and complete selection criteria needs to cover (with the exception of citizenship and membership in SAA.)  It is well written and should be clear to athletes and coaches attempting to be selected”.

This was a report which SAA received shortly before receiving on 25 July 2009, the disappointing news that it was indefinitely suspended from funding by SSC.

3. SAA WAS ALWAYS POORLY RATED BY SSC – UNTRUE! ANNEX C

- According to SSC assessment, SAA made improvement in areas of leadership, planning, information, people, processes and customers.

SSC usually conducts a review of the NSAs every four (4) years. However, there was a review done in 2006 and again in 2008 on SAA (see annex).

These were reports commissioned by SSC to assess National Sports Associations.  For the first two reports, they reflected a holistic review of the state of affairs in Associations.  Associations were generally assessed over 7 dimensions:

The findings of these reports were used to determine the funding levels of associations.  This can be proven by written communications which were sent to SAA secretariat.   

The 2008/9 report showed an almost 10-point improvement in performance of SAA. 

It is all the more puzzling that notwithstanding improvements in 6 of the seven areas, SAA was suspended from funding in July 2009.

Both reports showed that SAA had a reasonable pass mark and was in fact being assessed over 7 dimensions and not only performance as seems to be portrayed in media. In fact, from the assessment, SSC has been giving SAA the impression that it has improved in all areas except results – for which no improvement or regression was registered for its pass mark.

Conclusion

It is obvious from the presentation of the issues (above) in their wholeness, showed that the question of credibility of SAA has been established.

As with all NSAs, SAA may need to address certain areas for improvement and SAA will be engaging its affiliates on the way forward.  We hope that with this heightened communications, you will be more engaged in the process and understand the work which the Association has and is undertaking to move track and field forward.

Warm regards,

Management of Singapore Athletic Association