Athletics in the UK: The Rise and Fall of the BAF

52 The ticking time bombs Race Walking Commission – hon. Secretary 1 vote Fell & Hill Running Commission – hon. secretary 1 vote Tug of War Commission – hon. Secretary 1 vote International Athletes 2 votes * It was expected that joint men/women organisations would be formed and, pending this, it was up to the existing separate entities how the votes would be shared. A total of 47 persons, representing all the branches of the sport, could, and did, attend meetings of the Council and were entitled to vote; and these did not include life members and professional staff who would attend but not vote. Whereas the Area Associations of England had got their way with direct representation on the Council, as I have already pointed out, England collectively, with 20 votes out of 47, did not have the inbuilt majority that, at one stage, had been mooted. Such a group was far too large to meet very often and to efficiently manage the affairs of the federation and oversee the professional staff. Thus it met only a few times a year and the effective management was entrusted to a smaller management board. And herein was created one of the fatal flaws that were to undermine the BAF. The Management Board comprised ten persons; the five officers plus five others, three of whom would be appointed by the Council and two elected at each AGM. These ten persons were designated as the directors of the company (BAF Limited) for legal purposes and, as such, bore the weight of the responsibilities imposed by company law. It was the directors who, legally, were responsible for conducting the business and financial affairs of the BAF in a proper manner and, given the size and complexity of the commercial activities undertaken, these were obligations that had to be taken seriously. The problem was that, written into the Articles of Association of the BAF, it was the Council which had the final say on all management matters and could over-rule the Management Board. The Management Board was therefore in the highly unsatisfactory position that it could be second guessed on decisions that it had taken in good faith. This did indeed lead to