I often see people refer to "The LTA" as an organisation and want to know actually who it is at the LTA responsible for certain decisions. When board members post things like "The LTA scrapped most of the futures events" or "The LTA scrapped the bonus scheme" etc it must be a decision from either the Chief Exec, an internal committee or an individual. Here's what I can gather from their website. The one I was most intrigued about was who decided to reduce the £100k prize money for Aegon Team Tennis, down to £25k, whilst increasing the entry fee to raise 6000 (team entries) x £18 (entry fees) over £100k in entry fees.
Scott Lloyd is joining in January as the chief exec, i.e. the ultimate decision maker, replacing Michael Downey.
Alastair Marks is in charge of participation
Olly Scadgell is in charge of major events and competitions
Simon Timson is in charge of performance
Then the board members page mentions:
County Tennis committee responsible for talent identification and performance tennis
Professional Tennis Advisory and Scrutiny Board
Funding and Tennis Performance Committee
Facilities Advisory Funding group
Tennis Europe Pro Tennis Committee
Tennis Development Committee
With Ed Corrie's dad being the current President of the board, they have a parent with great experience of raising a professional tennis player and the associated problems in this country. Also I notice most of the board or directors have played, still do play to a county standard or have put in a massive amount of voluntary work for tennis.
You'll probably find everyone covers everyone else's back. Responsibility will be diffused to the point of meaning nothing.
By contrast, a sharp, lean, well-functioning organisation - of medium size like the LTA - is directed day-to-day by no more than three senior people who take charge of the only three essentials that matter in an organisation - production, marketing and finance: what you make; how you sell it and how you account for everything financially. The board would never have more than seven members in total and no management meeting would ever take place with more than seven present. Anything more is a lecture interspersed with politics.
Has the LTA made any announcement on 2018 pro tournaments? Am I right in thinking the Aegon sponsorship finished for the tournaments? I see that the Challengers ones are mentioned on the LTA website was just wondering if they put any Futures calendar together that's if the LTA bother with any!
Has the LTA made any announcement on 2018 pro tournaments? Am I right in thinking the Aegon sponsorship finished for the tournaments? I see that the Challengers ones are mentioned on the LTA website was just wondering if they put any Futures calendar together that's if the LTA bother with any!
I think the first three men's futures can be found on the ITF website. Glasgow starting at the end of Jan and is followed by Loughborough and Shrewsbury. I haven't seen anything beyond that.
Is it still the plan internationally to have a major revamp of the lower tiers of pro tennis and if so is there any particular timescale regarding this ?
I should possibly add that in my "chat" with Leon last week in La Manga, he repeated what he told me last year saying that it was very difficult to get clubs to host the futures events. Even with the LTA stumping up 100% of costs, there were very few takers.
I should possibly add that in my "chat" with Leon last week in La Manga, he repeated what he told me last year saying that it was very difficult to get clubs to host the futures events. Even with the LTA stumping up 100% of costs, there were very few takers.
How on either were there were more than 20 GB futures as recently as 2013? Were the LTA stumping up far more than 100% of the costs?! This still looks to me very much about the LTA first and foremost and their priorities.
I would think you are correct Indi in that presumption. The thing is that as they stand, the Futures events probably arent very attractive. We had some posts that discussed the fact that Futures in some countries are more attractively packaged as events in their own right with a history and a narrative around them. The West of England Indoor Championships or the East Scotland Grass Courts or whatever. Without that packaging and narrative, the event is British F3 and means nothing to anyone - the spectators or the media - and thus it is very hard to sell it. If no one turns up, if there is no media coverage locally , regionally or nationally then the sponsors wont be interested and the event needs to be funded by the club or centre hosting the event. And why should they close down their courts for a week and not be able to take money from customers for an event that doesnt give them anything.
The way to break it and get more events and more funding seems to me to be package them better and create a commercial opportunity around the event; A bit like building the Hoover Dam and the general US construction boom of the 30's which created supply chains and jobs and took them out of recession, sometimes it needs investment to make things move along and create a circular good for everyone, and that has to start with the LTA.
I should possibly add that in my "chat" with Leon last week in La Manga, he repeated what he told me last year saying that it was very difficult to get clubs to host the futures events. Even with the LTA stumping up 100% of costs, there were very few takers.
How on either were there were more than 20 GB futures as recently as 2013? Were the LTA stumping up far more than 100% of the costs?! This still looks to me very much about the LTA first and foremost and their priorities.
That's a very good point. Leon's point is all very well but what has changed so dramatically in the last 4 years?
What's the minimum amount of courts required to host a futures event? Or are there any other type of restrictions/demands from the ITF that determine which venues are eligible to host one? I wonder what the futures circuit in GB would look like if it was in the hands of private business, i.e. to make a profit. Rather than hugely subsidised by the LTA. If they all made a profit it would be a no-brainer for the LTA to host more. One way to do that would be to run a large number of lower level events at the same time as the futures to bring in more entry fees. I have considered hiring the 25 courts at Queenswood for a massive recreational level tournament, but at up-to £1000/day for hire, it's a big risk.
I looked up the venues in 2013 and also added in the other venues from the 2017 British Tour to give an idea of which venues might be not playing ball with the LTA.
What's the minimum amount of courts required to host a futures event?
3 match courts plus 1 practice, for a 32 draw outdoor event; 2 + 1 for indoors. Larger draw sizes require more courts.
Look up "ITF Pro Circuit Organisational Requirements" for the full speil.
JonH's post above pretty much sums up the issues imo. I expect the incoming LTA chief exec will have this down as a priority. Without a valid competition structure a sport becomes largely irrelevant and reverts to being a mere game.
EddietheEagle wrote: I expect the incoming LTA chief exec will have this down as a priority.
I like that for everything you post, you still retain optimism regarding the LTA.
I have zero postive expectations regarding the incoming guy. And that's fine, because from that position, I will feel no disappointmenrt and can only be impressed.
The incoming LTA chief exec comes from an organisation which currently does not provide any of the venues for current Futures or British Tour events, even though they are arguably some of the best facilities in the country. I'm not sure his current organisation, despite being the largest tennis club in the UK, really do much to benefit the sport as a whole.