Very sarcastic article on the topic in the Telegraph. How can Mr Draper look his colleagues and subordinates in the eye, when this sort of article is becoming commonplace. Becoming an embarrassment?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/matthew-norman/9758986/Roger-Draper-is-worth-every-penny-of-the-640000-the-LTA-pays-him.html

Trial in the press by moral outrage is indeed unpleasant. There might be some justification in this case, given that 5 years is plenty of time to clearly demonstrate some leadership and performance improvement, and because the press is amplifying (as they always do) the feedback coming from Sports Authorities and government interest groups, rather than looking for a scapegoat off their own bat. The press release on the home page of the LTA site reads as though the Sport England and UK Sport awards are a great success - there is no hint of the VERY CLEAR slap in the face that both funding bodies gave to the LTA in writing and in formal press conferences.

With respect the Iceland vs Tesco analogy is a good one, but probably not the right enemy for us to target in the first instance. There are over a hundred countries represented in the ATP and WTA rankings, from the Tescos (France, Spain, US) to the Icelands (GB, Czech, Sweden, etc) to the cornershops (Indonesia, Israel, Luxembourg, etc). Whilst its true that France and Spain have about 20% of the top 250 men between them, there's plenty of other less funded countries for us to "take share" from in the higher levels of men's and women's tennis. What about Serbia, Croatia, Belgium, Romania, Czech, Slovakia, Austria, Holland, Taiwan, Korea, Ukraine, Belarus or even Russia? I suspect all of these nations would kill for our funding, both at grassroots and at elite levels. Some of them might want our weather too (did I just say that?). And none of them have a Grand Slam championship to drive profit or national interest.

For 2 separate funding bodies and parliamentary representatives to be SO personal and SO negative in public, and to court the press to spread the word, smacks of extreme frustration - I suspect we can barely imagine some of the discussions taking place on the ground.

Ratty wrote:

---

Goodness, it's just fascinating what this shows about micro-economics in action. It illustrates what will inevitably happen when an organisation's purpose is not the blissfully simple one of maximising profit, and when its leaders are accountable only to a small self-appointed clique. They can, and they will, take the piss.

---

Spot on with the last sentiment!

Although many organisations with profit and non-profit objectives CAN succeed spectacularly, with a bit of tinkering and often with outside influence/sponsors to ensure rigour and measure performance.

I'm no great fan of Sky, but it's hard to argue that they have been anything but superb supporters of British cycling at both the elite performance end, and at grassroots level (they support a range of initiatives promoting the take-up of cycling generally, as well as junior competitions and clubs). I suspect strongly that the profit motive is at the heart of everything, but there is no doubt that they have set very clear performance targets for the sport and their teams, and would have acted ruthlessly to make people changes if success had not come about so rapidly. News Corp doesn't mess about - there's no words minced if you don't perform, and they always go mass market - exactly the way sport should be!

As for tennis, I'm sure if there are layers of cliques, clubs, allies, friends and rules in the way, with an element of middle-class tradition, mind-set and snobbishness thrown in (perhaps less than the past, but still alive and well), a Sky or equivalent would seek to rip this culture apart as an immediate priority, if only to protect its investment, or would put its money elsewhere in short order. And they would only back a CEO who shared this vision, which would mean him/her rocking the boat. In the medium to long term, the only route to success is to change the grassroots game, in terms of a step-change in quantity of players produced and the type of backgrounds they come from, and the coaching/tournament/club set-up which ensures the best players are spotted and supported in numbers (with minimal influence from the "cliques"). Aegon is no Sky, and they would probably be less than happy with their investment in GB tennis to date: I would be very surprised if this partnership is extended.

Perhaps tennis needs a more "active" investor, like a Sky, with a like-minded CEO that THEY have approved to drive through the changes. Mr Draper doesn't appear to have the confidence of his various stakeholders today, so I'd be suprised if he would fit well in a more results-oriented environment as in cycling.

I honestly believe that the LTA underhand practices and elitist approach will be exposed soon as more and more are brave enough to speak out! If the LTA made decisions based on results only and not such subjective garbage, or if they decided not to hinder players progress because of external factors, some faith in the system could start to be restored. Irrespective of this, even if everything was fine, how can someone in a non-profit organisation take such an absurd income, and not feel any embarresment, is beyond me.