Unreal - Roger Drapers salary!!

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

RE: Unreal - Roger Drapers salary!!

korriban · Challenger level

Bob in Spain wrote:
Apparently, Mark Petchey has now thrown his hat into the ring, offering to replace Roger Draper and for considerably less money !!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/20899357

Very interesting. There's also a passionate 5 minute interview with Mark from 2010, basically saying much of the same stuff ( look for "related articles" on the same web page). Its hard to disagree with Mark's analysis about the centre of gravity of funding being in the wrong place - we need more at grassroots (clubs, schools, coaches, indoor courts, equipment, free training, mass market emphasis rather than middle class), less for the elite players. But headlines are easy, delivery is harder. Whether Mark is the right person to lead the LTA I don't know, but he looks like he wants to rock the boat (a key requirement in my book), which may well rule him out!!!

On a related note, the complete silence from Mr Draper since the series of funding cuts, criticisms of the LTA, and personal attacks on his pay and performance in December has been almost deafening. From a PR point of view, in this particular case, probably the least bad approach......keep quiet, and wait for the press to lose interest. Mark Petchey is attempting to prolong the press scrutiny, but it will subside in a month or so.

I also noticed in December the withdrawal en masse of the elite junior boys from the Aussie Open (Edmund, Bambridge, Hoyt, O'Mara). Very disappointing. These are some of the names that Mr Draper has been pushing as the future of GB men's tennis (with good reason btw) for a while now, and you could argue that if they had failed en masse in Australia so soon after the press drubbing of the LTA and Mr Draper, it would have been another nail in the coffin. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are very good tennis reasons for them playing pro tournaments slightly closer to home instead, but our boys played Australia juniors in both 2011 and 2012, so what changed? Is my imagination running away with me?

Ratty · County player

A bit more sleuthing, and we have the following (all for 2011):

LTA - Turnover: £62m, CEO pay: £640,000, CEO pay as % of turnover: 1%

RFU - Turnover: £117m, CEO pay: £239,000, CEO pay as % of turnover: 0.2%

FA - Turnover: £329m, CEO pay: £528,000, CEO pay as % of turnover: 0.2%

ECB - Turnover: £146m, CEO pay: £310,000, CEO pay as % of turnover: 0.2%

So, on this admittedly crude measure, we have a "going rate" for Roger Draper's job of £124,000 pa!

I have no idea whether he's competent, but his remuneration is egregiously indefensible - as one might infer from the DEAFENING SILENCE from the LTA. Which is in itself pretty indefensible for a semi-public body.

-- Edited by Ratty on Saturday 5th of January 2013 07:26:42 AM

korriban · Challenger level

Bob in Spain wrote:
I also noticed in December the withdrawal en masse of the elite junior boys from the Aussie Open (Edmund, Bambridge, Hoyt, O'Mara). Very disappointing. These are some of the names that Mr Draper has been pushing as the future of GB men's tennis (with good reason btw) for a while now, and you could argue that if they had failed en masse in Australia so soon after the press drubbing of the LTA and Mr Draper, it would have been another nail in the coffin. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are very good tennis reasons for them playing pro tournaments slightly closer to home instead, but our boys played Australia juniors in both 2011 and 2012, so what changed? Is my imagination running away with me?
The reason given to me when I spoke to their coaches in La Manga last month was that a trip to Australia takes 5 weeks out of the season - one to acclimatise, one for a warm up, two for the tournament and one for travelling back. The official line was that it makes more sense for them to play competitively in the USA than "waste" 5 weeks to focus on one tournament.
Now whether that is the REAL reason or just a smoke screen is a different question. Let's be honest - we all love a good conspiracy theory, don't we ??

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Thursday 3rd of January 2013 06:10:43 PM

I certainly do!! Since your post, the entire GB boys team has withdrawn, with just 2 girls remaining. Our recent junior GS winners all played Australia - Robson (twice a finalist), Watson, Golding. Most (not all) of the world's top 10 juniors each year play Australia. There MUST be a benefit to players who genuinely believe they can be top 50 in seniors to be exposed to the extra pressure, scale and public attention of all 4 Grand Slams as juniors, to test themselves in that kind of atmosphere as well as as gaining experience of each venue. Surely Edmund would have been a genuine contender to win this time around! After all he was allowed to play last year, so I don't know what the difference is!

Our junior boys (plus Liam) played 3 or 4 weeks of futures main draw Florida clay in November to finish their pro tour season (and did well, picking up decent points). Post winter break, they are now playing yet another 4 weeks of Florida clay, this time from QDs. From a ranking points perspective, it's a really tough ask (as evidenced by the first tournament - only 1 out of 4 (incl Marzi) into the MD - good luck Kyle, who would need 2 more wins against higher ranked opponents to pick up 2 points!). From a training, "even more" clay experience and high level of competition perspective, there's a justification. But depending on how things go, you could easily see a group of young guys playing a lot, but with very few points to show for it (which matters for Liam and Luke especially to ensure MDs in later tournaments), and therefore somewhat down on themselves.

If there is an overall masterplan, I'd love to know what it is!

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

They have a cunning plan.

So cunning that I doubt they understand it themselves.

Ratty · County player

The coaches think it's best for our chaps to go to the USA. You think it's best for them to go to Australia. I can't see any way of making an objective assessment of who's "right" (*).

Neither do I think that it actually matters a jot in the long run. Can you see (say) Kyle Edmund looking back over his career in 15 years' time, and thinking "Oh, it would have made all the difference, if only I'd played in the 2013 Junior Australian Open." No, I thought not ...

(*) To borrow from Karl Popper, a hypothesis is often only worthwhile if it is falsifiable, and this sort of assertion isn't ..... oh, zzzzz

smile

korriban · Challenger level

There is no right or wrong. It's an opinion on a subject, similar to most of the posts on this forum, like the predictions competition which closes shortly.........there's still time to enter!

Seriously, my point is more around wanting to be confident that Kyle and others at all times receive the best advice and support available from the LTA to achieve their individual long term playing goals, free from all personal and/or political considerations that might be part of a wider GB tennis agenda. Its not about a single decision on where to play this January. Just seems odd that all the GB junior boys were entered at the AO en masse, all talked about a full grand slam programme in 2013, yet suddenly none are playing, having all withdrawn in December. 8 out of the top 10 ranked world juniors think its important enough to play the AO. I'm inherently suspicious of 180 degree about turns, late changes of approach, and across the board "group" policies. What's right for one, may not be right for all. That Mr Popper sounds a bit of a laugh!!

Spectator · All-time great

I think that has to be the first time I have heard Mr Popper described as "a bit of a laugh" (even with smiley-face attached).

I'm not sure I see the value to someone like Mr Edmund of playing the junior AO. It does take a lot of time and money, and how much -- as he makes the transition to the seniors -- would it be worth to him? Junior points aren't important for his transition. Prestige-wise, he has a doubles GS already and a singles SF, so there would really only be value added if he won or were a finalist. If so many of the top boys are playing, that's far from a certainty ... not least because he played so few junior tournaments that he would be unseeded, so could well end up in a situation like last year's Wimbledon, where he faced Mitchell Krueger in the first round (a match that Krueger himself said should have been a QF or SF). He might win such a draw; then again he might not. It might be good to get more experience against top juniors who, if all goes well, will be in his cohort in the senior ranks ... but he can do that later in the year.

So there's some argument for playing adults in a low-pressure situation, getting in a lot of matches on clay and earning at least some points that will stand him in good stead later in the season, no? And might the decision to return to US clay rather than going to Australia be related less to a conspiracy than to an evaluation of the positive trip the group had in November/December?

-- Edited by Spectator on Thursday 10th of January 2013 12:50:18 PM

korriban · Challenger level

Spectator. You may be right on all counts, especially re Luke and Kyle. Maybe hard on Jonny and Evan, who aren't in the US. But if we send a biggish team junior next year, it will look a bit odd! we will see

Ratty · County player

Sorry to keep on banging on about this, but I can't really see that it matters at all what tournaments one plays in, or where they are, or what surface they're on, provided that one keeps trying to stretch one's abilities.

After all, Spaniards don't really play junior tournaments at all - actually I tell a lie, Nadal played ONE (junior Wimbledon when he was 16, losing to that household name Lamine Ouahab) - and it doesn't seem to do them any harm.

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

Ratty I don't think the point of this particular debate is really about the benefit of the specific tournaments in the US over the junior AO, the debate and concern seems more centered around the worry that the LTA are deciding based on the press coverage it will generate which tournaments to send the junior players they are helping to nurture to a career in top flight tennis.

You're right, in the long run if a player is going to make it to the top whether they played 3 American futures tournaments or one junior AO should not make a shred of difference, but what might make a difference, especially to the ones who are only going to make it to near the top (because there will always be players who are only ever at the 200-150 level) is the belief that they have good people in their governing body who have their best interests at heart and to be honest the mass withdrawal of everyone from the junior AO in the wake of some bad press is not the way to go about reassuring people of that. It also seems to be a gross over-reaction to what is, lets face it, merely a slightly new spin on the usual poke the lta with a stick because there's no tennis on season.

daisy · County player

Bob in Spain wrote:
Apparently, Mark Petchey has now thrown his hat into the ring, offering to replace Roger Draper and for considerably less money !!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/20899357

Time for Petch to make the jump to light speed ... Roger Draper is leaving the LTA!!!

Report here on the British Tennis website.

http://www.lta.org.uk/News/2013/March/2013-03-11/LTA-Chief-Executive-Roger-Draper-to-step-down-in-September/

philwrig · Hall of fame

That'll make a few people smile I suspect.

In some ways a success, lasted 7 years and wasn't sacked, compared to previous incumbents.

Mens Dubs successes, and progress made on the women's side cannot be argued, so I'll give him a 7/10.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Ah yes, it's the LTAs fault Andy has an injured back, and that Heather and Bally were out for months, and of course that Laura pulled out the doubles. BURN HIM!

The LTAs job on the performance side is to give the elite players the tools to be the best they can be. Like a football club chairman.

Day to day the coach works with the player, but when the players cross the line it's up to them.

As much as people don't like it, it's not Rogers fault we had so many first round losses, unless Roger gets the credit for us having so many players who were actually able to compete in the first place. The only people to blame are the players who on the day didnt play as well as they can. That's sport.

LTA are an easy target who set themselves up half the time by doing some really stupid things. An organisation within which much is wrong, but they have done some good too. Jonathan Overend was at pains to be balanced in his assessment of Drapers time in charge. Too many journalists can't be bothered because its much more fun to attack the LTA instead and ignore everything else.

Lots of players liked the Draper regime because he tried to bring back objective funding in the seniors, supporting players regardless of age or background, which everyone has cried out for for years. It flowed in and out though and consistency of funding basis wou,d be welcomed. We seem to hav had more stability the past year or 2.

Some good initiatives lost their way sadly, HPCs being a prime example I think of an idea which is great in principle and set out to do what everyone wanted but has unfortunately morphed into a money grabbing opportunity by coaches and clubs who no longer work in the players best interests.

The players we have now are not really a product of Drapers regime. He made many mistakes, the hiring of big name coaches to work with mediocre players on huge salaries, Talent ID (which is ridiculous) but there are some tangible improvements on the ground which can help move us to a good place.

But is his salary obscene - yes. And unjustifiable.

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 3rd of June 2013 08:35:42 PM

baxi2 · Lower Club Player

This post by Korriban in another thread from earlier today adds some weight to the argument regarding Mr Drapers salary and his perceived level of success.

"In general this has been one of the most enjoyable French Opens I can recall, and (contrary to the emerging consensus on this Board), I have enjoyed ITV's coverage, not least because of the insights from Fabrice Santoro and Jim Courier. Even John Inverdale is worth his self-indulgences and flights of fancy, because he also asks the type of questions and raises the issues that GENERAL sports fans would be interested in, rather than tennis nerds like us. Getting his facts wrong is clearly not on, but his research team may be as much to blame.

However without fear of contradiction, I think this has been the worst showing by GB at Roland Garros in living memory

1. No men in the Main Draw, with Andy's withdrawal.

2. Probably only one other Brit would have been ranked high enough to attempt Men's qualies, but he didn't bother to try.

3. 3 women in the Main Draw, one on a Protected ranking. All lost in the first round, although Heather played well.

4. 3 women in qualies. All failed to qualify. 2 lost their first match, 1 their second.

5. 3 teams with Brits in the men's doubles. Our all Brit team lost in the first, another team in the second. Dom Inglot still going in the third.

6. Laura pulled out of women's doubles and the mixed. Heather lost both her first rlound matches.

7. All 4 (I think) of our juniors in qualifiers failed to qualify.

8. In the juniors Main Draw in all likelihood only 1 girl and 1 boy will win a round. (I hope Katie upsets the odds against Konjuh today, but since Ana played her first ever $25k last week and reached the final, losing in 3 to Petra Martic, the omens look bleak).

Hugely disappointing - one to forget

I think Mr Draper, Mr PR itself, if history repeats itself will simply be the Invisible Man. If we'd done well, he'd be all over RG like a nasty rash, doing interviews left right and centre. "

-- Edited by korriban on Monday 3rd of June 2013 07:54:08 AM