A Happy Xmas from ARC

The Association of Running Clubs wish a Merry Christmas to all 60000 of you who ran in our 207 permitted races during 2008. ARC will continue to reduce bureaucracy and costs for all road runners in 2009. ARC is owned by its 142 member clubs and is run entirely by unpaid volunteers.

Comments

  • Is it possible to join online yet? I will sign up as soon as you arrive in the 21st century. Haven't written a cheque in years.
  • Running Commentary. I have not yet discovered a club that does not have a bank account. ARC is run entirely by volunteers and thus keeps expenses very low. It would be completely uneconomic to set up an online payments system to cater for one club subscription.
  • But Michael, even though a club may have a bank account, it is still hard to open a new account with a cheque book. 
  • I am sure that ARC could accept direct transfers into its bank account if this was required.
  • Its something to think about as most banks are phasing out cheque books.

    (and thanks for the help with Northern Sole BTW, image)

  • You can't even say Happy Christmas these days without aggro!

    A very Happy Christmas to you too ARC - keep up the good work.
  • LOL swerve...

    image

  • Michael - are you aware that the North Pier Boxing Day 10k in Blackpool was advertised as having an ARC permit when none was issued, as you stated yourself on the thread?  At least £38 was collected in unattached levies, presumably to pass on to ARC.  Is someone making a monkey out of your organisation collecting money on the basis of a race being permitted when it was not?
  • According to the information in my possession the North Pier Boxing Day 10K in Blackpool was not advertised as having an ARC permit.  I assure you that nobody is likely to make a monkey out of ARC.

  • Thanks for the greeting.

    But if i may interject there was a runner who entered the North Pier Boxing Day 10k, Who is certain that the flyer he received advertising the event stated that it did have a ARC permit.

    Merry xmas to you and a happy new year.

  • As I understand it due to a mistake by the organiser the flyer displayed an ARC logo. Naturally I am not happy about that and I trust that it will not happen again.

  • I have a bank account, Michael but just don't write cheques anymore, and haven't done so for years.

    I'll mail you separately to see if I can pay electronically. Sorry if I sounded curmudgeonly. I must have just got back from the pub.

  • OK Michael White, thanks for clearing that up.

    I look forward to 2009 race calendar

  • Thanks for replying Michael.

    There remains the matter of the £2 unattached levy collected by SRH Promotions on the (mistaken) understanding that it was an ARC permitted race.  You must agree that it doesn't look to clever when an ARC committee member mistakenly uses the organisation's logo and collects in money on that basis. 

  • Barnsley Runner I understand that the money collected as unattached levies has been donated to the Red Cross who provided medical cover for this event. No doubt in view of the circumstances that you describe ARC could have been compelled to use its Directors and Officers Insurance cover which has a limit of £5,000,000 to meet any claim against ARC for personal injury as a result of this event.

    As they say to err is human. At least ARC's mistakes are on a small scale unlike those of Barnsley Runners friends in England Athletics who have just tipped £20,000,000 of tax payers money down the plug hole. After all it needs a rare genius to set up a regional organisation and then 3 years later close it all down, sack all the staff and start afresh.

  • Michael - I don't know why you need to use the phrase `Barnsley Runners friends'.  I have no strong opinion on the ARC / EA debate.  I just thought that you needed to be aware of an issue relating to the issuing of permits and collecting of unattached levies in a race publicised as an ARC race by an ARC committee member.

    I don't think it shows the ARC in a good light to assume that I have any `friends' in EA.  I have no dealings in the politics of athletics, not on any committees / boards etc, I just want to see fair play for all runners. 

    To err is indeed human.  To err over and over again looks like carelessness - no marshalls, finish area packed up early, missing water station, short courses in other races....

  • Barnsley Runner We have already established that this race did not have an ARC permit and therefore did not sign an undertaking to abide by ARC minimum race standards. The race literature did not say that the event had an ARC permit and it was not included in the list of ARC permitted races on the ARC website. If you are going to launch attacks on ARC you could at least speak the truth and not indulge in gross exaggeration.

    It is not true to state that there were no marshals at the Boxing Day 10K. I am not aware of any short courses in any ARC permitted races. I am completely satisfied that last years Blackpool Marathon was accurately measured by an accredited course measurer. It is probable that a number of runners did not run the measured route.

    ARC is owned and managed by the running clubs. It exists to provide reasonably priced efficiently organised and safe races for the sport. The feed back from runners participating in ARC races has been overwhelmingly positive. I am not happy that 2 runners in the Blackpool 10K which is associated with ARC did not receive a finish time and thus had a disappointing experience and I should like to apologise to them.

  • Does the race entry form count as `race literature'?

    Re. the Blackpool Marathon, Athletics Data seems to have it as short, as well as Power of 10.  No doubt it was accurately measured by an accredited course measurer, but the course was changed on the morning due to external circumstances and therefore none of the runners ran the originally measured route.

    On what date did ARC receive the accredited course measurement?

    I'm not here to knock the ARC - I've done some races permitted by them with no problems.  The point at issue was races organised by SRH Promotions.  It's admirable for you and others to come on these threads to speak up for your friend, but a quiet word in his ear after recent problems seems to be in order.

  • Barnsley Runner  I have a business relationship with Ron McAndrew that is all. I am actually grateful to you and others for bringing any problems with our ARC races to our attention. Naturally we take steps to try to ensure that any problems revealed do not recur.

    The route for the Blackpool Marathon was amended at the last minute on demands from the Police and the Council caused by a shipwreck. I am assured that the amended route was accurately measured. It seems therefore that the runners did not for some reason follow the measured route.

    Course Measurement Certificates are issued by the course measurers direct to the race organiser. Ron McAndrew is, of course, a qualified course measurer for both UKA and ARC and measures his own races. We do check that a course measurement certificate is in existence before issue of a road race permit.

  • Michael, I am one of those people that received no finish time for the Blackpool 10k, as you are aware. Thanks for your apology. More than I've had from your chairman at ARC. He says the race had no ARC permit & therefore won't answer my complaint about the race.

    ALL my literature for this race stated it had a permit. It did not.

    There were NO marshalls at this race. I was there. I know what I saw. I saw Red Cross people on route, but no marshalls, water, finish line, or anyone on the finish to take my time.

  • Respect I have now managed to find a copy of a race entry form which does indeed state that the race will be permitted by ARC. In view of the situation it is clear to me that the race was insured by the ARC insurance policy. The appropriate premium will be paid to insurers at the next quarterly adjustment date which is 31st March 2009.

    You were also entitled to expect that the race would comply with the ARC minimum race standards. This was not a road race since no part of it took place on a road. Dealing with your complaints and assessing the race compliance with ARC minimum standards for off road races

    1 There were no marshals. This is not true there was at least one marshal. ARC minimum standard states "course marking, signing and marshalling will be such as to prevent runners from going off course." All the runners seemed to keep to the race route. I would not expect that there would be many marshals on a clearly identifiable very safe route.

    2 There were no water stations. ARC minimum standard states " Drink stations will be provided in accordance with the organisers risk assessment" The organiser obviously assessed that there was no need for a drink station on a 10K race on the 26th December with a forecast temperature of just above zero.

    3 There was no sweep marshal. ARC minimum standard states "Either there will be a clearly identifiable "sweep" marshal following the field, or suitable measures will be in place to ensure that the whereabouts of the last competitor is tracked by the organiser" The organiser thought that he had adequate arrangements in place to track the last competitor by inquiry from other runners and the marshal and the first aider walked a mile back down the course. Finding no more runners they closed the finish. Obviously the organiser did not have adequate arrangements in place and he has apologised to you and refunded your race entry fee. I on behalf of ARC have also apologised to you  and I have drawn this matter to the attention of the race organiser. 

  • 1) There were no marshalls whatsoever. There may have been for the front runners, but certainly not for me. Avril & her parner will also confirm there were no marshalls for us & no-one on finish. If you have a list of entrants, & a list of finishers, then why is it so hard to see there are several runners still on the course? The course was NOT clearly marked, & the end section extremely confusing. I had to keep asking members of the public which way the runners had gone. I took the right route by guess work & good luck.

    2) It was advertised as having a water station. There wasn't one.

    3) Clearly adequate measures were NOT put in place to ensure they knew the whereabout of the last competitor, or they wouldn't have left 3 people still on the course & abandoned the finish.

    Why are race organisers allowed to advertise they have a permit, when they don't?

    If the race WAS covered by ARC, why is your chairman saying this race has nothing to do with him, as it didn't have their permit? Which is it? Was it one of their races or not?

  • Respect I have already answered your questions at length in my last post.

    Regarding your suggestion in 1 since an average of 20% of race entrants do not turn up to run on the day and some others go home without finishing the race it would clearly be impossible to monitor race finishers in the manner suggested by your self.

    I have already told you that this race was covered by the ARC insurance policy.

  • Er.........I told the organiser on the morning of the race that I would probably be last & therefore not to go home before giving me a finish time.

    You answered my questions giving some incorrect info.

    You haven't said why Ron is allowed to advertise he has an ARC permit, when he doesn't. He mentioned nothing about insurance to me, he said his race had nothing to do with ARC. So does the chairman of ARC. I am being told totally different things by different people.

  • Respect  If you wish to continue this conversation and to make an official complaint to ARC please write to me at the registered address of the company. We are all volunteers giving our time without charge in order to provide you with a safe, low cost and enjoyable sport.
  • I have already made an official complaint to your chairman by email.

    He fobs me off.

    Probably because Ron is on your committee.

  • Respect I have spent a great deal of time attempting to answer your complaints on this forum. Naturally I am concerned that you did not enjoy your race. I was not at the race so I do not know all the facts. I do welcome your comments some of which are very valid. They will receive attention. We do welcome unattached and slower runners at our ARC races.
  • Unattached, what difference does it make if Respect is single or not...... I'm sorry i couldnt resist thought i would add some levity to this matter image
Sign In or Register to comment.